Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Northampton Corporation Bill,

Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Mr. GILBERT: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the European countries which do not now require passports or visas for British travellers who visit such countries for holiday periods, and whether there is any relaxation in any of those countries for short holiday visits?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): In general, all European countries require travellers to possess passports. Special arrangements have been made dispensing with this requirement for day and week-end excursions to Calais, Boulogne, Dieppe and Ostend. British travellers do not require visas for France or Belgium, and will not require visas for Switzerland after 15th April.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Has the same arrangement been made with Holland for the same period?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No; I do not think any such arrangement has been made with Holland.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: If the visas have been taken off to Switzerland, will they be taken off from Switzerland to England?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when a British subject has been duly vouched for and put into possession of a British passport, that passport may be renewed without the necessity of a further recommendation, should the renewal have to be made at some centre where the individual in question is unacquainted with any British subject possessing the requisite qualifications, together with direct personal knowledge of the applicant?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In such cases a recommendation may be dispensed with at the discretion of the Consular officer.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would it not be as well to have that printed on the form?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will consider whether such an instruction can be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (DEPORTEES).

Mr. SWAN: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the island of Mahé, on which the deportees from Egypt have been placed, has a rainy climate and a temperature of 84 degrees in the shade in winter; that there is only one qualified medical practitioner and no specialists upon it; that there are no dentists and no drugs upon the island; that Saad Zaghloul Pasha is suffering from diabetes and bronchitis, Barakat Bey also from diabetes, and William Makram Ebeid from malaria contracted since his arrest; whether the deportees have addressed a complaint to the Foreign Office in regard to the place of their detention; and what reply has been given to this complaint?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am informed that the shade temperature in the Sey-chelle Islands ranges from about 68 degrees to 84 degrees Fahrenheit, but is lower in the hills and the climate is not considered unhealthy. There are three Government medical officers in the colony, the chief of whom is an experienced officer of high standing. Facilities exist for dental treatment and there is no reason to suppose that the supply of drugs is insufficient for local needs. I am aware that Zaghloul Pasha
has long suffered from the complaint mentioned by the hon. Member, but I have no information that he has contracted bronchitis or that the health of the other deportees is impaired. No complaint as to their place of detention has been received from the deportees.

Mr. SWAN: Will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiries on these points in regard to the state of health of these people, and is he aware that one of them was in hospital for ten days at Aden?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware of that, but I will confer with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN FRONTIERS (MONEY RESTRICTIONS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the examination which takes place upon many European frontiers as to the amount of money carried by travellers; that any excess, of a certain amount is taken away; and that, in certain cases, so little is left to the traveller as to render difficult the continuation of the particular journey to its termination; and whether he is prepared to investigate this matter with a view to the removal of this system?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am aware of the restrictions in force in various countries, and the matter will no doubt be borne in mind at Genoa when the possibilities of improving inter-State traffic and of abolishing or restricting import and export prohibitions are discussed.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman make certain that this question is brought up at Genoa, as it is a very important matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot make myself responsible for the discussions that are to take place at Genoa.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CAPTAINS (PROMOTIONS).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what number of captains were pro-
moted to rear-admirals during the two years, respectively, from 1st April, 1920, to 31st March, 1921, and from the latter date to 31st March, 1922?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Eighteen captains were promoted to rear-admiral between the 1st April, 1920, and 31st March, 1921, and 21 between the 1st April, 1921, and 31st March, 1922.

ENEMY SINKINGS.

Mr. KENNEDY: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of any unusual circumstances connected with the sinking by enemy action of the steamships "Grelhame," "Grel Fryda," "Ballater," "Greltoria," "Greldon," and "Hartland," between the 30th of August and the 30th of November, 1917; whether he is aware that subsequent to the latter date a report was made on behalf of the owners reflecting on the good faith of certain persons who had access to information relating to the movements of the vessels mentioned; what action was taken by the authorities on the ground of that report; and with what result?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The last two parts do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the board of directors of the associated companies owning the vessels mentioned in this question there was a non-naturalised enemy alien, who held a seat on the directorate during the period mentioned in the question, and will that fact not induce him to inquire into the substance of this question, in order to find out whether there should not be some further investigation into this matter?

Mr. AMERY: I have investigated the circumstances. There was nothing in connection with the sinking of these steamers different from the sinking of other steamers, and I see no special reason for making further inquiries.

Mr. KENNEDY: Am I correct in assuming that the good faith of the enemy alien involved in this question was vouched for by Members of His Majesty's Government on the ground of special business reasons?

Mr. AMERY: I have heard nothing about that, but I will inquire.

KOSYTH DOCKYARD.

Mr. YOUNG: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that men discharged from Rosyth Dockyard can only hope to find work by returning to the dockyard locality from which they were sent to Rosyth; and whether, in the event of their doing so, he will consider the advisability of transferring the apprentice sons of any of them who may so return so that families may not be divided, and expense saved to those who agreed to work in Rosyth at the Admiralty's request?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): It is regretted that no confirmation can be given to the suggestion that there is more hope of finding employment in the localities of the southern dockyards than in other localities. Apprentices who are sons of men eligible to be brought back will be transferred to the southern dockyards, and allowed to complete their apprenticeship should they so desire. I should add that the removal expenses of sons over sixteen years of age will not be paid by the Crown.

WRITERS (PHYSICAL STANDARD).

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the orders which authorise a lower physical standard, other than vision, for the entry of men into the writer branch of the Royal Navy; and whether the Admiralty will effect any improvements in the ventilation and lighting of the offices ashore and afloat in view of the high percentage of consumption cases in the Royal Naval writer branch, observing that, although the duties of naval writers demand a sedentary indoor type of life, this is by no means peculiar to the writer branch, and that the high percentage of invalids cannot be altogether attributable to a reduced physical standard during the War period, because the same reduced standard was also applied to many other branches?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the first part of the question, the Regulations authorising a lower physical standard for writers in other respects than vision were introduced in 1911. As regards the other
parts of the question, I have nothing to add to my reply of 20th March, except that the desirability of raising the physical standard of writers on entry is being considered.

OFFICERS' LODGING ALLOWANCE (INCOME TAX).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the reduction of naval officers' pay by the taxation of their lodging allowance when serving ashore; that owing to this taxation having been made retrospective an officer in receipt of £100 lodging allowance per annum is liable to pay £60 in the current year, though when this allowance was approved in 1919 it was distinctly stated that due notice would be given if any change was contemplated; and, in view of these facts, will he consider the discontinuance of this new taxation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers, of which I am sending him copies, given on the 6th, 20th and 29th March by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to questions by the hon. and gallant Member for the Shettleston Division of Glasgow (Rear-Admiral Adair). I do not follow the figures in the cases alluded to, but I shall be pleased to have the matter looked into, on being furnished with the necessary particulars.

BATTLESHIPS (BOMB ATTACKS).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 5.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any information that a 4,000 lb. bomb has been dropped quite successfully from the air in America?

Mr. AMERY: According to the American Press a bomb of 4,300 lb., carrying about 2,000 lb. T.N.T., has been dropped on land by an army aeroplane. This is the only instance of which the Admiralty have any information.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Can we have some experiments on this side with regard to bomb dropping? Can we have the Hood for 10 minutes against the Air Force?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is there a single aeroplane in any Navy in the
world operating from an air craft carrier which is capable of carrying bombs of such a size?

Mr. AMERY: I believe not.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 6 and 7.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether the new designs for the post-Jutland battleships, as contemplated to be built in 1923, can resist a 4,000-lb. bomb when dropped from the air within 30 feet of the ship if fitted with a delay-action fuse for detonating the explosive charge when at about 20 feet under water;
(2) whether any experiments have been carried out in this country to determine the effect of the water projectile thrown up by a 2,000-lb., 3,000-lb., or 4,000-lb. bomb dropped from the air to strike the water at various distances from a target representing the under-water portion of a post-Jutland battleship provided with an external bulge or other devices for lessening the explosive effect of a locomotive torpedo or bomb dropped from the air?

Mr. AMERY: It is not in the public interest to give information with regard to experiments which have been, and are still being, carried out, but the Admiralty consider that satisfactory protection can be provided in the new ships against the attack suggested in these two questions.

SURPLUS OFFICERS.

Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement with regard to how it is proposed to deal with officers of the Royal Navy surplus to requirements; and whether he can assure the House that a similar delay in promotion will not occur again?

Mr. AMERY: Proposals for effecting the reduction of surplus officers of the fighting services are now being considered, and it is hoped that a decision will 'be reached shortly. As regards the second part of the question, the postponed promotions to the rank of Commander have now been announced. There is no reason to anticipate the recurrence of a similar delay in announcing promotions.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea when the Government are likely to come to a decision as to what will be done with officers surplus to requirement?

Mr. AMERY: I hope a decision will be reached in a very few days.

HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the decision of the Admiralty to close Haulbowline Dockyard absolutely forthwith has been in any way modified; and, if so, for what reason, under what conditions can His Majesty's Government maintain a dockyard in the Irish Free State, and will any extra expense to the Navy Estimates be entailed?

Mr. AMERY: At the request of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, the Admiralty have agreed to suspend further action in effecting the closing down of Haulbowline Dockyard, the Provisional Government having undertaken to accept liability for payments made for the maintenance of the yard from 1st April, 1922.

Viscount CURZON: Is this yard needed for naval purposes, and will the hon. Gentleman give an answer to the second part of the question?

Mr. AMERY: I thought that my answer fully explained that no extra expense will be involved. The Provisional Government have undertaken to be responsible.

Viscount CURZON: Do you want this yard for the benefit of the Royal Navy?

Mr. AMERY: No; it is not needed mainly for naval purposes. As far as the Government is concerned, we would have closed it down by the end of last month, but at the request of the Provisional Government it is being kept going, at the expense of the Provisional Government.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Will Pembroke Dockyard still be required?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (PERMANENT SECRETARIES).

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, from the inception of the Ministry up till
1921–22, one Permanent Secretary was considered sufficient to supervise the Department, at a salary of £l,500 a year; that in 1921–22 two joint Permanent Secretaries were appointed at £3,000 a year each; and that in the Estimates for 1922–23 provision is made for a Chief Labour Adviser at £3,000 a year, and a Permanent Secretary at £2,200 a year; and why work carried on in 1920 for £1,500 is in 1922 to cost £5,200?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): When the Ministry of Labour was formed, in 1916, the staff included a Secretary at £1,500, and also a Chief Industrial Commissioner at £2,000. In 1919, the attempt was made to combine the duties attaching to the two in one and the same office. Experience proved that the work could not be effectively done by one officer, and in April, 1920, arrangements were made to free Sir David Shackleton from the duties of Secretary, and to enable him to devote himself exclusively to the work of Chief Labour Adviser. These arrangements involved the appointment of a separate Secretary of the Ministry. Both officers were assigned the salary of £3,000 a year, in common with the permanent heads of other first-class offices. The salary and rank attaching to the Chief Labour Adviser are personal to the present holder, and will be reviewed on a vacancy. In August last a change of Secretary afforded opportunity to review the controlling posts at the Ministry. There were then a Secretary at £3,000, a Chief Labour Adviser at £3,000, and a second Secretary at £1,350. It was decided to appoint a Secretary at £2,200, to continue the Chief Labour Adivser at £3,000, and to abolish the post of second Secretary. These arrangements effected a saving of £2,150 per annum.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ordinary taxpayer, who has the greatest difficulty in making both ends meet, is very dissatisfied with this increase of permanent officials and their bloated salaries?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There is already a reduction of £2,150 a year.

Mr. W. TH0RNE: Are they paid out of the contributions of the employers and the workmen?

Dr. MACNAMARA: They are paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

TRADE BOARD OFFICERS (DISMISSAL).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour how many of the officers whose duties consisted of inquiries into, and action consequent upon, infringements of trade boards regulations were dismissed on 31st March on the ground that the Ministry of Labour had no further use for their services?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The employment of two temporary officers, who had been engaged for a short time as Trade Board inspectors, was terminated on 31st March, in consequence of the general reduction in the Department's expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour when the Report of the Committee on the Employment of Disabled Ex-Soldiers will be presented to the House?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As I informed my Noble Friend on 3rd August last, as a result of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on the Employment of Severely Disabled Ex-Soldiers, assistance has been given to the Central Committee of the Lord Roberts Memorial Workshops. Applications from certain other institutions are under consideration. I do not think any advantage would be gained by publishing the Report.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there not a close connection between the Government's refusal to publish this Report and the Government's unwillingness to carry out their recommendations?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so.

AIR FORCE DEPOT, ICKENHAM.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Air why the ex-service men composing the temporary clerical staff, No. 4, Stores Depot, Royal Air Force, Ickenham, are to be replaced by civil servants in the higher grade and a number of junior clerks in the lower grade; and whether he is aware that some of the men to be replaced are old
soldiers who have completed 21 years' continuous service with the colours, and that no provision whatever is made for these veterans, although when they enlisted 25 years ago they were officially informed that Government employment would be found for old soldiers in certain Government Departments which were named.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): A revised and reduced establishment for the clerical staff of the Store Depots of the Royal Air Force has been rendered necessary in the interests of national economy. It is the intention to fill as many as possible of the appointments on the new establishment from the present temporary clerical staff, who will be given an opportunity of competing amongst themselves for permanent appointments on this new establishment. Those who succeed will be so appointed, and it is anticipated that it will be possible for the present to retain most of the remainder as temporary clerks in place of the women clerks who are ultimately to form part of the revised establishment. The old soldiers to whom reference is made in the question will have the same chance of retention as the others. It will, of course, be apparent to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Air Ministry could not have been included in the Departments covered by the promise which he states was made to these men 25 years ago.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.

Sir J. D. REES: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the scheme for the education of ex-officers at the universities is to cost the taxpayer £8,001,000; and, if so, why the original Estimate has been exceeded?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The original rough estimate was exceeded, because it was found that the number of ex-service men who on the principles of the scheme had good claims to its benefits, who were well qualified to follow courses of higher education, and who could be accommodated at the universities and other institutions of higher education, was much larger than was anticipated.

WIRELESS OPERATORS (WATCHERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the investigations of the Department into the question of the unskilled class of wireless operators, known as watchers, and employed in sea-going ships to relieve skilled wireless ratings; whether he is in a position to state if this class of operators will be abolished; and if he is aware of the effect that the present policy is having on ex-service men who have been trained under the Government scheme as skilled operators and now find employment cannot be obtained?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The Report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee on watchers has been received and is being considered, but no decision has yet been arrived at. I am aware that this question, which is entirely one of safety of life at sea, has a bearing on the question of employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ENGINEERING TRADE.

Mr. MILLS: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour if it has been decided to discontinue benefit to all men in the engineering trade: whether he is prepared to ascertain the length of time that many thousands of them have been unemployed before the present lock-out commenced, and for whom there is no possible chance of employment even were a settlement obtained; and will he state the intention of the Government in this matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Workpeople in the engineering trade, who were thrown out of employment before the commencement of the present lock-out, and who were entitled to benefit, still remain entitled to benefit for the statutory number of weeks and are not affected by the occurrence of the dispute. It is not possible, except at great cost, to ascertain the length of time these workpeople have been unemployed.

BOYS AND GIRLS, LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of officials in London Employ-
ment Exchanges who deal with juvenile employment; and the number of girls and boys leaving school during last year who were found employment through the London Employment Exchanges?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There are 131 Employment Exchange officials, permanent or temporary, dealing directly with boys and girls in the County of London. The total number of boys and girls placed in employment during 1921 was 25,358, of whom about 5,300 were placed in their first situation after leaving school. The officials above referred to, I should add, deal with the administration of unemployment benefit for boys and girls, and do a great deal of other work in the way of giving advice regarding openings for employment which is not reflected in the mere figures of numbers placed in employment.

INSTITUTIONAL WOEKS (INSURANCE).

Mr. MILLS: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that hundreds of men employed as temporary hands on institutional work, such as the Metropolitan Asylums Board, are not called upon to contribute to Unemployed Insurance, although in many cases holding cards, and are subject to dismissal without benefit; and what action he proposes to take?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that during a recent epidemic temporary employment was given by the Metropolitan Asylums Board to a number of persons on work which is held to be domestic service, and, therefore, uninsurable, I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to these cases, but, if not, and if he will supply me with particulars, I will make inquiry.

RELIEF WORK, ST. AUSTELL.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with a scheme for relief work under the St. Austell Rural District Council, he is aware that, although the men employed, being clay workers, are experienced in pick and shovel work the local authority have not received permission to pay the district rate of wages; and whether he will make inquiries into this matter and authorise payment of the full rate?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of correspondence between the district council and the Unemployment Grants Committee, from which ho will see that men certified by the council's surveyor as coming within the meaning of a skilled man employed at his own trade or a qualified navvy may receive the full rate of wages.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHING TRADE (WAGES).

Mr. KENNEDY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any inquiry has been held into the allegation that a certain firm of clothiers, having several branches in London, were paying wages less than those fixed by the appropriate Trade Board; and, if not, whether the delay in dealing with the firm in question is due to the Ministry of Labour being understaffed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Inquiry in the case to which I understand my hon. Friend refers has now been made, and consequential action is being taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE DISPUTES (BALLOTS).

Mr. HASLAM: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a code of rules, drawn up by his Department, which may be voluntarily accepted and embodied in the rules of employers' associations and trade unions with a view of ensuring greater satisfaction with regard to the secrecy of the ballot; and whether, should he view the suggestion favourably, he will also consider the desirability of taking such steps as may be necessary for supplying copies of such rules and ballot papers to such associations as may desire to consider this subject, with the view of conducting such ballots in a manner similar to that now exercised in connection with Parliamentary and municipal elections?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend's proposal is an interesting one, but I should prefer not to express an opinion upon it without further consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — DENTISTS' REGISTER.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the case
of persons applying for admission to the dentists' register who are required to produce proof of having practised dentistry, as their main means of livelihood, during the period spent as assistants to registered or unregistered dentists, a sworn affidavit by the person employing them to this effect is accepted as sufficient proof to entitle them to be registered, if in other respects they comply with the requirements of the Dentists Act?

Sir A. MOND: I understand that it is the custom of the Dental Board in the case of applicants for registration who have been employed by another unregistered practitioner to accept a sworn declaration by the employer as corroborative of the statements made by the applicant himself.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

TIMBER.

Mr. CHARLES PERCY: 26.
asked the Minister of Health what stocks of sawn wood or timber trees his Department now holds intended for building purposes; their original cost and present value; whether any part of such stocks are at present lying in the Forth, near Grangemouth; if so, when was it purchased and at what cost; and what is its present value?

Sir A. MOND: My Department now holds no stocks of timber. Stocks equivalent to 3,400 standards, which were stored at Grangemouth, were taken over by the Department of Building Materials Supply from the Board of Trade (Timber Supply Department) in September, 1919, at a price of £84,300. The whole of these stocks have been sold to local authorities and others on various dates, and no other stocks have been purchased.

Mr. RENDALL: Does that show a loss to the Government?

Sir A. MOND: I think not.

APPROVED SCHEMES.

Mr. MYERS: 30.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses of different types and the accommodation provided which are included in the plans and schemes approved by the Ministry of Health up to date?

Sir A. MOND: The numbers of houses of different types included in the 165,586 houses for which tenders have been approved on schemes submitted by local authorities and public utility societies are as follow:


Accommodation provided.
No. of Houses.


Living room, scullery and 2 bedrooms
3,092


Living room, scullery and 3 bedrooms
61,454


Living room, scullery and 4 bedrooms
331


Parlour, living room, scullery and 2 bedrooms
659


Parlour, living room, scullery and 3 bedrooms
94,691


Parlour, living room, scullery and 4 bedrooms
5,359


Total
165,586

BATHS.

Mr. MYERS: 31.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses erected and sanctioned under the schemes approved by his Department where no provision for a bath has been made, and, in the cases where baths have been provided, the number of houses where the bath is in the scullery and the number of houses where the bath has been placed in a room specially provided for the purpose?

Sir A. MOND: Over 90 per cent, of the houses in approved schemes have separate bathrooms. In a small proportion of the houses the bath is placed in the scullery and is usually so arranged that when in use access to other offices is not prevented. In some rural houses where there is no constant water supply, or where the drainage effluent is difficult to deal with, no bathroom or fixed bath has been provided, but in many of these cases the house has been so planned as to enable a bath to be installed when conditions as to water supply, etc., allow.

APPLICATIONS (WITHDRAWAL).

Mr. MYERS: 32.
asked the Minister of Health the number of applicants who have had their names upon the local registers for houses erected by the local authorities, and who have afterwards withdrawn their application or declined to enter into occupation of the houses
which have been offered to them on account of the rentals being too heavy for the applicant to pay?

Sir A. MOND: I understand that evidence given before the Rents Tribunal indicates that applications made before the houses were built and at a time when wages were high have in many instances been withdrawn subsequently. Detailed figures of the numbers of such cases are rot available, and I do not think that they could be obtained except at the cost of much labour and expense.

Mr. W. THORNE: Are any of the local authorities or contractors now building houses free to buy bricks where they like, or are they still compelled to buy from Government stocks?

Sir A. MOND: They have been free to buy bricks where they like for a long time.

CONSTRUCTION (COST).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give particulars of the actual cost of all houses which have been built and paid for to date by local authorities under the Government's housing schemes, showing the total number paid for and the average cost of each?

Sir A. MOND: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the houses already completed for the most part form part of contracts which have not yet been finished. Special returns from local authorities of capital expenditure on 27,000 houses indicate an average cost of £1,087 per house all included.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that figure will justify the estimate of £1,100 which he made earlier, in view of the fact that a great number of houses are now being built for £500?

Sir A. MOND: I am in hopes that the estimate will be reduced. It is very near.

LOANS (DURATION).

Mr. THOMSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give full particulars of the lengths of the various periods for which the money has been actually borrowed without any break clause by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for
the loans they have made to local authorities for housing, amounting to, approximately, £74,000,000 for repayment over periods varying from 20 to 80 years?

Mr. YOUNG: The money lent by the Public Works Loan Commissioners is raised in accordance with the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887, by the issue of perpetual Local Loans Stock.

Mr. THOMSON: For what length of period are these loans raised?

Mr. YOUNG: Local Loans Stock is perpetual.

SHORTAGE.

Mr. THOMSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he was correctly reported in the public Press of the 28th instant as stating that the policy of the Government was that, until private enterprise could build workmen's houses to be let at an economic rent, married people and their families must be content to live in one room, and that newly-married couples must follow the custom of the Chinese and other Eastern nations and continue to live with their parents until such times as unaided private enterprise could provide them with homes of their own?

Sir A. MOND: I did not make the statement contained in the question, nor am I aware that I was ever reported in any paper as making it. In the course of a long interview with a representative of what I have previously regarded as a responsible journal, I humorously ventured the remark that newly-married people would be so happy that they could enjoy living even in two rooms, and some conversation took place as to whether the practice of newly-married people living separately is not comparatively modern, and as to the custom in the older civilisations of the East. I am much surprised that the hon. Member should apparently regard these observations as a serious statement of policy, which, as I should have thought, would have been obvious to any intelligent reader of the interview were not to be regarded in such a manner.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the tragedy of the homeless is a suitable subject for humour on the part of a Minister?

Sir A. MOND: Certainly not, and I did not make it a subject of humour. Per-
haps I was over-optimistic as to the effect of marriage on the newly-married, in view of the position in regard to houses at the time.

RENT RESTRICTION ACT.

Colonel NEWMAN: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the public anxiety with regard to the approaching termination of the Rent Restriction Act; and has he been able to impress on the Government the necessity of placing on the Statute Book legislation on somewhat similar lines to that of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act?

Sir A. MOND: As I have previously pointed out, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act does not expire until June, 1923. It is not proposed to introduce legislation on the lines suggested in the latter part of the question.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if he will make a Departmental or other inquiry into the desirability, or otherwise, of extending the Rent Restriction Act so that the public will be able to arrive at an impartial understanding of the whole question?

Sir A. MONO: As the present Act continues in force until June, 1923, the period recommended by Lord Salisbury's Committee, I do not think that any advantage would be gained by the appointment of another Committee at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Act is largely responsible for the present shortage of houses, because no private builder will build houses under the present conditions?

Sir W. de FRECE: Is there not a genuine anxiety as to what will happen when the Act does cease, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to disarm criticism by now stating his policy?

Sir A. MOND: In view of the fact that it will be more than 12 months before the Act expires, I think it would be unwise now to lay down the policy.

Mr. HANNON: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the heavy burden of taxation imposed upon
house property and the unremunerative condition of such property through the operation of the Rent Restriction Act, he will consider the cases of investors, such as small traders, thrifty artisans, and others, in this class of property in the preparation of his forthcoming Budget, so that reasonable concessions may be made where the margin of net rent is small or where actual loss is sustained?

Mr. YOUNG: I would remind my hon. Friend that, under the provisions of Rule 8 of No. V in Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by subsequent enactments, owners of the class of property in question can obtain relief from Income Tax in respect of the actual cost of maintenance and repairs on the average of the five preceding years.

Oral Answers to Questions — LUNACY REFORM.

Captain LOSEBY: 27.
asked the Minister of Health if he intends to introduce a Bill dealing with lunacy reform at an early date?

Sir A. MOND: This question is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to say whether it will be practicable to introduce, legislation.

Captain LOSEBY: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman refused a Royal Commission on the ground that he intended to introduce, a Bill, at an early date, and if he does not so intend, will he reconsider the demand for the setting up of a Royal Commission?

Sir A. MOND: I am still in hope of being able to introduce a Bill, but that depends on the time of the House and other matters not under my control. If I do not, then I will reconsider the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION DECLARATIONS, LEWISHAM.

Mr. MILLS: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the vaccination officer for the Lewisham district has for some years accepted declarations under the Vaccination Act, 1907, made by mothers who are married women, and has allowed such declarations to cover the fathers of the children in ques-
tion; whether the officer now declines to accept such declarations: and whether he can give any reason for the officer's change of conduct in this matter?

Sir A. MOND: I have no information as to the action of the vaccination officer in this matter. But I am advised that the obligation to cause a child to be vaccinated is placed on the person having the custody of the child, and, consequently, a declaration made by the mother, under the Vaccination Act, 1907, would not exempt the father from liability if he has the legal custody of the child.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (ASSESSMENT APPEALS).

Mr. HURD: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a pamphlet, issued by the Great Western Railway Company, in which it is declared that an extensive campaign of appeals against their assessments was to be conducted, which, the pamphlet admits, will probably compel local authorities to impose higher rates on the already overburdened general body of ratepayers, thus causing increased unemployment; whether appeals are being extensively made; and what action his Department has found it possible to take to protect the general body of ratepayers in the absence of the promised legislation to revise the incidence of local taxation?

Sir A. MOND: I do not think that many appeals are being made against railway assesments. One of the principal objects of the recent agreement between the National Conference of Assessment Committees and the railway companies was to avoid the great cost of such appeals, and I am hopeful that the result of this agreement will be to save the ratepayers unnecessary expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACCOUNTS (AUDIT).

Sir W. de FRECE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health the reasons actuating his Department in prescribing a new form it; which local education authorities have to submit their accounts for audit; whether this is carried out at the wish of, or with the approval of, the Board of
Education; whether he is aware that the educational authorities referred to, having only had very short notice of the contemplated change, are for the most part opposed to its coming into operation this year, and object to many aspects of its drafting on the ground of economy and effectiveness; and whether, under these circumstances, he will exercise the power he possesses of suspending the coming into operation of the form for one year and in the meantime consult the local authorities still further as to various improvements which could be made in it?

Sir A. MOND: As I have already stated, the form referred to is not a form of keeping accounts, but of an annual return which is required for the purposes of the Board, of Education, and was issued with their concurrence. It was explained last week that the Board of Education, while they cannot agree to postpone the introduction of the new form, are prepared to make concessions in respect of the year just ended. As regards the future, I shall be happy to consider any suggestions that may be made by local authorities for the improvement of the form.

ECONOMIES.

Mr. RENDALL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Government's educational policy in regard to the increased size of classes and reduction of the number of teachers, resulting in serious interference with effective teaching, as also the cut of 5 per cent, in teachers' salaries, have been generally condemned as uneconomic and a breach of faith with the teachers; and whether, in view of the Government's statement that the teachers' pension system was to be further investigated, he will promise that such investigation shall precede any final decision on this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to a question on this subject on the 27th March, and to his subsequent statement in the Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on the 28th March.

Mr. RENDALL: Do the Government intend to have the investigation specially referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said, I have nothing to add to the statement of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT BILLS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to tell the House what measures foreshadowed in His Majesty's Speech to Parliament will be introduced after the Easter Recess?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the intention of the Government to introduce after Easter any of the Bills referred to in His Majesty's Speech which are not already before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME-GROWN SUGAR.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the proposed remission of Excise Duty on beet sugar will apply to all beet sugar grown and manufactured in this country; and whether he is aware that, with regard to one of the two beet sugar manufactories now operating in England, which, having been in existence for over 10 years must be regarded as no longer in the experimental stage, the controlling interest and management is in the hands of Dutch capitalists?

Major BARNSTON (for Sir A. Boscawen): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the factory referred to, that at Cantley, is still in its experimental stage. It was built in 1912, was closed during the War, and reopened in 1920. I understand that negotiations are now in progress for the amalgamation of the two factories under British control.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Has the House of Commons ever sanctioned this new measure of protection?

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the sugar duty was intended to be a revenue duty, and was never intended to be a protective tariff, and will he represent to the Minister that at any rate any reduction that can be made in the sugar duty should be spread over all kinds of sugar?

Major BARNSTON: I will represent both points to my right hon. Friend.

Captain BENN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an answer to my question as to whether the authority of this House has been sought and obtained for this measure of protection?

Major BARNSTON: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that as well as I do.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the proposed remission of Excise Duty on home-grown sugar would amount to a preference of £21 per ton in favour of English beet as against Colonial cane as the duties now stand and that the Budget statement has been anticipated as regards the Sugar Excise Duties, he can now make any statement as to assisting the Colonial cane-sugar industry by a reduction in the Customs duties or otherwise?

Mr. YOUNG: The special circumstances which rendered necessary an immediate announcement on the subject of the Excise duty on sugar have already been indicated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement in other respects.

Captain BENN: Has the Cabinet sanctioned this new protective measure, and is it competent, for the Government to remit taxation without the consent of the House of Commons?

Mr. SPEAKER: It was stated quite clearly the other day—and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself knows the procedure of the House—that the Government can only propose. It is for the House to decide a matter of this kind.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Minister take into consideration that unless some step is taken to protect West Indian sugar, the West Indies will be again reduced to destitution, and the whole machinery of the trade will be destroyed owing to American operations in Cuba?

Mr. G. ROBERTS: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the main consideration is the employment of British labour?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the hon. Gentleman remember the condition of British agriculture first?

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in setting this precedent he is bolstering up an over capitalised and extravagantly run industry?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE:

Mr. REMER: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there is any change of policy with reference to foot-and-mouth disease; whether it is proposed to change the policy of slaughtering and institute the policy of isolation; and whether, before adopting any such change of policy, he will consult fully the agricultural interests?

Major BARNSTON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. It has always been the practice to isolate in certain cases, and I would refer the hon. Member to the concluding portion of my right hon. Friend's reply yesterday, to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western (Lieut. -Colonel Murray), in which he stated the principles on which the Ministry acts.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUAETEEMASTER CAPTAINS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the present inequality in the retired pay of captain quartermasters of the Army and of the Royal Marines; and whether he will take steps to raise the maximum scale of retired pay for Army quartermaster captains to £350, which has been allowed since 1st April, 1919, to Marine quartermaster captains?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 16th March to a question on this subject by my Noble Friend the Member for the Aldershot Division of Hants (Viscount Wolmer).

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LOEDS EEFOEM.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: 48.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Government
propose to introduce their Resolutions concerning the reform of the House of Lords?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As was announced in another place yesterday, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs intends to introduce the Resolutions as soon after his return from Genoa as can be conveniently arranged.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Do we understand that the Resolutions are to be initiated in the House of Lords, and not here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend has understood that. It was stated in plain terms at the very beginning of the Session.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will Resolutions be introduced in this House after those Resolutions have been discussed in the House of Lords?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We will decide that at the proper time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TREATMENT).

Mr. GILBERT: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether any instructions have been issued by his Department to any medical officers under their control in Poor Law or other institutions to use the Schick treatment for the prevention of diphtheria; whether his Department provide the serum necessary or whether it has to be purchased from wholesale houses; whether it is a special proprietary article which can only be obtained from certain firms; and whether it is manufactured in this country or whether it has to be imported from Germany or America?

Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The serum in question is manufactured in this country by certain firms which have the necessary laboratory equipment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND OWNERSHIP, NORTHERN RHODESIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that Earl Buxton's Committee recommended that the claim of
the Chartered Company to the commercial ownership of the lands of Northern Rhodesia should be referred for adjudication to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, His Majesty's Government accepted this recommendation; and if he can now say when he hopes to present a case to the Judicial Committee for consideration?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): His Majesty's Government have stated that they have accepted the Report of Lord Buxton's Committee on Northern Rhodesia, but as regards the arrangements for the proposed reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I cannot yet add anything to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle East (Major Harnett) on the 21st February.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we assume that no arrangement will be come to directly between the Colonial Office and the Chartered Company which will prevent this reference to the Privy Council?

Mr. WOOD: I cannot state that positively, but I think it is most unlikely.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH NORTH BORNEO COMPANY.

Mr. JOHN WILSON: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the figures showing the revenue derived by the Chartered Company of North Borneo from its monopoly control of the sale of opium?

Mr. WOOD: No, Sir;, the company have been asked for the information, but I have not yet received it.

Mr. WILSON: 56.
further asked the Secretary of State whether his attention has been drawn to the published work of an official of the North Borneo Chartered Company, in which allegations were made that under the company's rule gambling, the sale of opium and spirits, and pawnbroking have been made monopolies; and whether he proposes to draw the attention of this company to the deplorable results which are likely to accrue to these organised monopolies over the means of degradation?

Mr. WOOD: No, Sir; I do not know what publication is referred to. I have no doubt that the court of directors of the company are aware of the possible risks attending monopolies of opium and spirits, as well as of the advantages which are often considered to accrue from unified control in these matters. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the terms of the Charter the Secretary of State's rights of intervention are limited.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMMISSION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to give the names of the Commission to investigate the awards for damages made under the Malicious and Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Acts?

Mr. WOOD: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give these names.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will these names be given before Easter, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Colonial Secretary promised the House that this Commission would be at work in Ireland by now?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I hope to give them before the end of the week.

WAR OFFICE (UNESTABLISHED STAFF).

Mr. KENNEDY: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for War if consideration has yet been given to the position of un-established civil servants in War Office employment in Ireland having regard to the reductions consequent on evacuation; whether he is aware that other public departments in Ireland have as far as possible secured the establishment of their unestablished staff; whether some early announcement can be made informing those concerned of what they may expect in the way of pension or gratuity, or future conditions and opportunities of employment; and if an assurance can now be given that the civil servants in War Office employment will not be treated less favourably than the staffs of other Government Departments?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am only in a position to say at present that this important and difficult matter is already under my close consideration.

BRITISH TUG (PIRATICAL SEIZURE).

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could give the House any information with reference to the fighting reported to be taking place in the Sperrin mountains?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Notice of my Noble Friend's question has reached me only at this moment. I have no information on the subject except what has appeared in the newspapers. The Sperrin mountains are in the area of the Northern Parliament. I am making inquiries about this and other incidents. Perhaps I may tell the House that the ship "Upnor," which was piratically seized last week, had on board 381 rifles, 727 revolvers, 33 Lewis guns, and six Maxim guns. All these were taken. That is less than I stated in regard to the rifles and revolvers, and the same number as I stated in regard to the machine-guns. The small arms ammunition cannot exceed 25,000 rounds, including pistol ammunition, and not 500,000 as was then apprehended, and as I stated to the House. How much of each kind is not yet known.

Viscount CURZON: Will any inquiry be held into the loss of this ship?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, the most searching inquiry.

Mr. RAWLINSON: What steps are being taken to recover these arms and this ammunition?

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (DISBANDMENT).

Colonel NEWMAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether representations have been made to him by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are now being disbanded that, owing to threatened danger to their lives, they cannot return to their homes, and under these circumstances what action does he intend to take for their protection?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): Yes, Sir, I have received the representations referred to, and my attention has also been called to the brutal and savage murder of one and the severe wounding of another recently disbanded member of the force in County Mayo. The latter,
I regret to say, is in a critical condition. In accordance with the unanimous wish of the officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Government decided to disband the whole force. On 5th January notice was issued that, in the event of the Royal Irish Constabulary ceasing to be an Imperial force, members would be permitted to retire on the terms laid down for compulsory retirement under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Disbandment commenced on the 29th of last month. Postponement of the disbandment, in the hope of more settled conditions at a later date, would not be in accordance either with the interests or with the wishes of the Constabulary. As the House is aware, the men have been informed that, in addition to the compensation and disturbance allowances payable to them on disbandment, the fares of themselves, their families and dependants will be paid by the Government to any part of the United Kingdom to which they may wish to go. It is open, therefore, to any man who so desires to leave Ireland immediately on disbandment and to arrange for his family and dependants to follow him. Notice was given to the Provisional Government of the impending disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary before dispersal began. The Provisional Government were asked to do all in their power to protect these men, all of whom are Irishmen, and nearly all of whom are Roman Catholics. The police authorities in Great Britain have also been asked TO show every consideration to ex-members of the force who may report to them.

Colonel NEWMAN: How are these men to support their wives and families over here for a long period merely on their pensions?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the same facilities will be afforded to these men and their families if they decide to emigrate overseas?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Special facilities and arrangements are being made for commuting a portion of the pension for emigration purposes. With reference to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Finehley (Colonel Newman), the White Paper, which will be available for Members to-morrow, will show the terms of disbandment, and will show that
they are the most generous ever granted by this House. I do not anticipate that under these terms any member of the force will be in want on disbandment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Would not the position be simplified if these men could be treated in the way that we treat the military? Could they not be brought to this country and disbanded here instead of being disbanded there and running all these unnecessary risks? It would be a simple bit of machinery.

Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the possibility of an entirely mistaken impression arising in this country about the Royal Irish Constabulary, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether any substantial number of these people want to leave Ireland at all?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that there-is to be commutation of the pensions to enable the men to emigrate. Does not that mean simply that the men will be paying their own fares to another part of the Empire? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be right that, in view of the overcrowding here, rather than bring these men to this country, the fares for themselves and their families should be paid for them if they wish to go to some of the less populated parts of the Empire?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think the Paper giving the terms of disbandment will clear up all questions as regards commutation. In reference to the question of disbanding this force in Great Britain, I may say that the Royal Irish Constabulary in Southern Ireland has already been disbanded to the number of approximately 6,000 officers and men. As far as I know, it is the wish of the men to be disbanded in Ireland and not in England.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained that that is their wish? In view of the question put by the hon. Member for Falls, will he take steps to ascertain as soon as possible how many men do wish to leave Ireland, and will he take steps to bring them over here in safety, having regard to the fact that if they are disbanded in Ireland they will likely have very great difficulty in leaving that country?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Before that is answered, I wish to ask will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these men get money for their travelling expenses instead of warrants, in view of the fact that the receipt of warrants by them very often places their lives in serious danger?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: We have had many interviews with deputations from the Royal Irish Constabulary, and no request to be disbanded in England has ever been raised. Every man of the force on disbandment not only gets a free ticket to his home in Ireland if he wishes to go there, but gets a free ticket for himself, his wife, children and dependents to any part of Ireland or Great Britain. At the same time, in addition to that, every single man gets his month's pay— the last month up to the date of disbandment—and an advance for contingencies. This advance he must account for in the future, if he uses it for travelling. Married men get from an advance of two to three months' pay, depending upon the number of children they have, to tide them over any expenses incurred by reason of moving. For this advance they also have to account.

Mr. McNEILL: On a point of Order. I put a question to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and then my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) put another question, which he asks the right hon. Gentleman to answer before mine. In consequence of the hon. and learned Member cutting in in that way, my question has not been answered at all. In these circumstances may I repeat it. It is this: Is it possible that the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that there are parts of Ireland where these men, if disbanded, cannot, with safety to their own lives, escape from the country?

Mr. DEVLIN: Nonsense!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No one realises it more than I do or regrets it more than I do, and I am sure the House shares the regret, but it is to meet that difficulty that we have, as I say, made special payments in addition to free warrants, for the man, his wife, his children and his dependents to any part of the United Kingdom.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already allowed a great number of questions, and I think, as the White Paper is to be circulated to-morrow, hon. Members had better see it first before putting further questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Government has considered the policy of waiving the means limit in the case of old age pensions up to a maximum of £50: and whether, apart from the cost, there would be any administrative difficulty in the way of carrying out this policy?

Mr. YOUNG: The attitude of the Government on this matter was fully stated last night by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Myers).

Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the big vote that my hon. Friend got last night for his Motion, will the Government be prepared to remove some of the restrictions that surround old age pensions at the present time?

Mr. YOUNG: I do not think it is possible for me usefully to add anything to my answer or to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

REGISTERED LETTER (Loss).

Mr. CAIRNS: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Mrs. J. H. Austin, of Stakeford, Northumberland, has received £2 0s. 3d. for a lost registered letter that she sent to her husband, J. H. Austin, able-bodied seaman, Royal Navy, who was in Gibraltar hospital, and that the letter was worth £5; and, if so, will he inquire the cause of £2 Os. 3d. being paid to Mrs. Austin for a letter worth £5?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The registration of a letter for a place abroad, unlike registration in the inland service, does not include insurance. As explained in the published Regulations,
it entitles the sender to a fixed indemnity in the event of the loss of the letter, irrespective of the value of its contents. The amount paid to Mrs. Austin in the case to which the hon. Member refers represents the fixed indemnity of £2 together with the sum paid by her as an inquiry fee.

Mr. CAIRNS: Why should this widow lose £2 19s. 9d. through the Post Office— upon what authority or rule?

Mr. PEASE: If my hon. Friend reads the answer, he will see that I have exactly answered that particular question.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does not the ordinary registration fee cover up to a limit of £5?

Mr. PEASE: There is a difference between the questions of insurance and of registration.

Mr. CAIRNS: Then people are not sure when sending money to a soldier friend or husband?

LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the working of the Conferencia method for long distance calls in Spain: and whether he is prepared to give the subscribers in this country the benefit of a similar arrangement in the trunk service?

Mr. PEASE: I understand that the Conferencia method referred to is one by which the attendance at a specified time at a public call office of a non-subscriber can be arranged by means of a notification transmitted at a special rate. My right hon. Friend has not seen his way to make the system of "fixed time" trunk calls which came into operation on Monday last as notified in the Press applicable to calls to or from a call office as the availability of a call office at a specified time cannot be assured; the matter will be further considered.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Surely what is possible to the Spanish Post Office is equally possible to the British Post Office?

Mr. PEASE: We have no information that there is a method called the "Conferencia." The hon. Member must be mistaken in regard to that.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman ask through the Foreign Office whether they will find out what the system is?

Mr. PEASE: I think the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake about the particular term.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: As I have already tried it in Spain, may I give the hon. Gentleman further particulars?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. CAIRNS: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider and abolish the Entertainments Duty at allotment flower shows; and is he aware that these allotment shows are largely supported by ex-service men?

Mr. YOUNG: Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1921, authorises the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to grant exemption from Entertainments Duty in respect of allotment flower shows which are shown to their satisfaction to be provided by a society established solely for the purpose of promoting the interests of horticulture and not conducted for profit, and to consist solely of an exhibition of the products of horticulture.

Mr. GRUNDY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these shows are being charged this tax because they have a local band that plays free, and that is a very great inducement to people to come, and that the shows are out for the purpose of encouraging allotments and for the better cultivation of allotments, and that the imposition of this tax has led to the stoppage of some of these annual shows?

Mr. YOUNG: Under the existing law the show must consist solely of an exhibition of the products of horticulture, and it has been held that a band is not one of the products of horticulture. The reasons for not making this exemption were fully explained on the Finance Bill last year.

Mr. GRUNDY: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already made one speech.

Mr. MAGQUISTEN: Would it not be possible for these local bands, which are presumably out for remuneration, to play just outside the show?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the yield from the Income Tax for the financial years ending 31st March, 1921 and 1922, respectively, exclusive of Super-tax and Mineral Rights Duty?

Mr. YOUNG: The Exchequer receipt of Income Tax was £338,865,000 in 1920–21, and £337,027,000 in 1921–22.

Sir M. D0CKRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a statement in the public Press, over the name of a Noble Lord, that relief can be had from Super-tax, and is that correct?

Mr. YOUNG: I would not encourage the belief that any relief from Super-tax can be had other than those provided for in the Statute.

Oral Answers to Questions — MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL RECEIPTS.

Sir G. COLLINS: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the main items included in the figure £187,939,795, Miscellaneous Special Receipts, for the financial year ending 31st March, 1922?

Mr. YOUNG: The total of Miscellaneous Special Receipts was £170,805,947, not £187,939,795. The main items in this total were:—



£


Disposal Board Receipts
42,700,000


Shipping Ministry Receipts
28,800,000


Liquidation of Food and Wheat Accounts
15,000,000


Army of Occupation Receipts
44,300,000


The balance was derived from repayments in respect of various Vote of Credit assets and other miscellaneous items. Full details will be published, as usual, in the Finance Accounts.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTORS, CLOCKS AND WATCHES.

Sir G. COLLINS: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue received from the 33j per cent, import duties levied on motors, clocks, and watches, for the financial years ending 31st March, 1921 and 1922, respectively?

Mr. YOUNG: The figures for the year ended 31st March, 1921, were:


Motor cars, etc.
£4,050,302


Clocks and watches
£781,498


The final figures for the year ended 31st ultimo are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE FUND (INVESTMENTS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 28 and 29.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that, of the securities held for National Health Insurance funds on 31st December, 1921, there is no less than £33,000,000 invested in gilt-edged securities, the majority of which bears interest at the rate of five per cent., which will be redeemed by the Government in less than six years' time; what steps have been taken by those responsible for the investment of funds on behalf of approved societies to ensure the retention of a five per cent, yield after the year 1928;
(2) whether, having regard to the fact that the amounts invested by the Ministry are in reality the funds of approved societies, he will consider the advisability of appointing a joint committee consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Health and of approved societies, with a view to ensuring that these investments are made to the best advantage of the societies and of avoiding the practice of having such a large sum as £33,000,000 redeemed by the Government at one time only to be reinvested at a lower rate of interest, and with a view to avoiding delays in notifying approved societies of sums due to them by way of interest and otherwise?

Mr. YOUNG: As the answer is somewhat lengthy, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOBT.

The following is the answer:

I may observe that of the £33,000,000 in question £27,400,000 is invested in bonds which have rights of conversion into 5 per cent. War Stock at the rate of £105 5s. 3d. for every £100 converted; and the National Debt Commissioners neglect no opportunity of effecting exchanges of such investments, where deemed expedient. At the present time about half of the National Health Insurance finds held by the National Debt Commissioners are invested in long-dated securities. In
making investments the Commissioners must have regard and give due weight to different considerations, e.g., the particular requirements of the capital and income accounts respectively from time to time, the necessity for keeping a due proportion of the funds in a liquid form, easily realisable at any time, and the necessity of avoiding capital loss on such realisation. The large amount of National War Bonds now held and maturing in the next eight years were purchased with special reference to the position of the capital account, as the permium of 5 per cent, payable on the redemption of such bonds will contribute towards meeting the nominal losses incurred owing (a) to the fall in the market value of securities generally and (b) to the conversion of a large amount of 2½ per cent. Consols held for the fund into 4½ per cent. War Loan. I see no necessity for the appointment of a joint committee for the purpose of advising the expert Department in the exercise of its statutory functions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOROUGH EXTENSIONS.

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if his Department has considered, and, if so, arrived at, any decision on the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the whole question of urban extension?

Sir A. MOND: I am discussing the subject of borough extensions with representatives of the County Councils Association and of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I should prefer to postpone any further statement until these discussions are concluded.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALLPOX HOSPITAL, SOUTHAMPTON.

Major HENNESSY: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any reason for withholding the inquiry which was decided upon in October, 1921, for the purchase by the town council of Southampton of a smallpox hospital from the Winchester Rural District Council, an agreement for which was reported to the Ministry in September last, but cannot be carried out until an inquiry has been held, thereby causing a difficulty in financial arrangements by the Winchester Rural District Council?

Sir A. MOND: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the scheme of the county council of Southampton for the acquisition of the hospital in question and certain other smallpox hospitals in the county. I have no objection in principle to the scheme, but am advised that a local inquiry should be held before it can be sanctioned. I am ready to hold the inquiry immediately on receipt of certain information for which I asked the county council in September last, but which has not yet been supplied.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any natives of Nairobi were shot down before any hostile act against the police was made; and whether at any time a single policeman, soldier, or white man was in any way injured by those who were demanding the release of Harry Thuku?

Mr. WOOD: I am afraid that there is as yet nothing to add to the answer which the Under-Secretary gave to the hon. Gentleman on the 29th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Sir C. COBB: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what the Department for the administration of Hungarian property is doing about the claims of British subjects for unpaid interest upon pre-War Hungarian Government and municipal securities and the encashment of such drawn unpaid British-held Hungarian securities, in conformity with the provisions of Article 231 of the Treaty of Peace (Hungary) Order, 1921; and whether the British Government's representative, who arrived at Budapest to deal with these claims about three months ago, has succeeded in arranging matters or has made any Report?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Claims of this nature are being notified to the Hungarian Clearing Office, but the time allowed under the Treaty to that office for dealing with them has not yet expired.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: To what purposes will the £100,000 sent by the Hungarian Government be allocated?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL INDIAN MARINE (OFFICERS).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in respect that officers in the Navy and Army, especially in India, are being offered options of retiring on payment of commuted sums, the same terms are open to officers in the Royal Indian Marine; and, if not, will he state the reason?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): There is no scheme for the premature retirement of officers of the Royal Indian Marine on special terms, because the present establishment of officers in this service is not in excess of requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN FISH (BRITISH PORTS).

Mr. KILEY: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what method is adopted by His Majesty's Customs responsible for the collection of reparation duty in deciding whether fish landed from German trawlers at British ports has been caught within German territorial waters, and is thus liable to duty, or outside these limits and is accordingly free?

Mr. YOUNG: Special forms of Customs report and entry are required in the case of foreign fishing vessels landing in British ports fresh fish taken on the deep-sea fishing grounds. The knowledge possessed by Customs officers of the fishing grounds in use at various seasons of the year provides a sufficient check on the reliability of the declarations made on these documents.

Dr. MURRAY: Does not this Regulation involve a premium on poaching in home waters by German trawlers?

Mr. YOUNG: No. I do not think that there can be the faintest possible tendency in that direction in this Regulation.

Major M. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that fishing is going on in home waters?

Mr. YOUNG: I am informed that the cargoes of fish to which the question refers come from the Icelandic grounds.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask you, Sir, a personal question? A short time ago you decided that it would be improper for a Member to ask a question standing in the name of another Member unless he first got the permission of the Member who put down the question. I would ask you whether you would reconsider the position, because some of us are placed in a very embarrassing position when we want to ask a question put by some of our Members, especially as I have an idea, in my own mind, on some occasions that hon. Members are disobeying your order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that Members of the House all round have been extremely good in following my order. It is only necessary for an hon. Member, who cannot be present to ask a question, to request another Member to put the question for him, and then it can be asked.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not impossible to say where these fish actually were caught?

Mr. YOUNG: The matter does not rest with me. I understand that the Customs officers who are used to watching cargoes arrive have certain information.

Mr. MAGQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing industry is being very much imperilled?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of further developments in the engineering and shipbuilding trade dispute, he can now make any statement on the subject, and also in regard to an inquiry under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the dispute in the engineering trades, there have been prolonged and continuous negotiations, and on Saturday last a joint
recommendation was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, representing the employers, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, on behalf of the mediating committee. This recommendation was the subject of discussion throughout Monday. But no common agreement could be reached.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had several conversations with the representatives of the unions and of the employers, particularly in view of the fact that lock-out notices affecting very large numbers of men were pending, and later in the day the unions, other than the Amalgamated Engineering Union, intimated their acceptance of the joint recommendation, and made proposals to the employers with a view to direct negotiations.
These proposals were considered by the employers this morning, and they agreed to accept them and to enter into negotiations with these unions on that basis. It is proposed that the negotiations shall commence on 10th April, and that meantime the lock-out notices in the case of members of unions other than the Amalgamated Engineering Union shall be suspended.
As regards a court of inquiry, I confess I can see no justification for instituting a court in respect of a matter conjointly affecting four groups of unions, three groups having found it possible to resume negotiations with the employers, and the fourth not.
With regard to the shipbuilding wages dispute, the ballot has now been declared, showing a majority against acceptance of the reductions. I understand that the unions are meeting this afternoon for the purpose of considering the position.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman in his possession the memorandum signed last Saturday, and, if so, would he be good enough to read it to the House?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This is the memorandum of last Saturday to which I referred:

MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW BETWEEN SIR ALLAN SMITH AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL JOINT COUNCIL HELD AT MONTAGU HOUSE, LONDON, 1ST APBIL. 1922.

With a view to securing an immediate resumption of negotiations between the
parties, it is jointly agreed to recommend as follows:
This Conference of the representatives of the Unions declares its willingness to resume negotiations with the Employers on the basis of Conference of 24th March, 1922; and accepts the principles laid down in Clause 1 thereof which imply the right of the management pending negotiations to give instructions, except where modified by agreement which may be entered into as a result of the negotiations which follow hereon.

The Employers and the Negotiating Committee of the Unions will endeavour to adjust mutually their ideas as to the manner in which the principle of management and the functions of trade unions will be applied to the actual circumstances of the cases to be discussed.

ALLAN M. SMITH.

ARTHUR HENDERSON,

Secretary,

National Joint Council.

Should the Conference of the Representatives of the Trade Unions accept the foregoing I shall submit to the Employers the position referred to in paragraph 4 of my letter to Mr. Arthur Henderson of 25th March. 1922, with a view to reconsideration, and shall arrange for a further conference between the Employers and the Negotiating Committee of the Trade Unions on Monday, 3rd April, 1922, at 3.30 p.m.

ALLAN M. SMITH,

1st April, 1922."

Mr. R. YOUNG: Why are the negotiations delayed until next Monday? Provided an agreement is reached between the unions and the employers on the question of managerial functions, will that agreement be officially made known to the executive of the Amalgamated Engineering Union for their consideration, and possibly a ballot of their members?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think all expedition will be used. There are communications to be made with the constituent bodies of various kinds, and I think those responsible are not losing any time in settling down to the serious discussion on Monday. As to the second point, if these good people come to an agreement there is no reason under the sun why that should not be communicated to the Amalgamated Engineering Union.

Mr. MILLS: In order to clear away misunderstanding and suspicion, would the right hon. Gentleman state definitely whether the principle of prior consultation in matters of overtime is ruled out?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have read the document. I will read again one sentence
in the document of last Saturday, jointly signed by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) and the right hon. Member for Widnee (Mr. A. Henderson). It is as follows:
. "…accepts the principle laid down in Clause one thereof, which implies the right of the management, pending negotiations, to give instructions.…

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET CRISIS IN BAGDAD.

MR. CHURCHILL'S STATEMENT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information about the crisis in Bagdad?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that a Ministerial crisis has arisen in Bagdad. Five members of the Iraq Cabinet have resigned, owing to divergence of views on the amount of the Army Estimates, and in particular on the question of the steps to be taken to guard against the raids on the Southern border of Iraq, which have, however, already been satisfactorily dealt with by the Royal Air Force. I regret to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is included among those who have resigned. He was known to be anxious about his Budget. The Iraq Government is organised on a non-party or Coalition basis and consequently there should be no difficulty in adequately filling the vacancies. The Press of Bagdad is divided, but the country remains calm.

POSITION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have not given him private notice, namely, whether he has any objection to myself and other outsiders attending the party meeting at a quarter past eight to-night?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. G. TERRELL: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether reasonable time cannot be given for hon. Members to present Amendments to the East Indian Loan Bill? The Second Reading of this Bill was taken in the early hours of this morning, and the Committee stage is the first Order for to-day. Naturally there
are no Amendments on the Paper. Some of us take a deep interest in this matter, which is of great public importance, and we would like to know whether time cannot be allowed for tabling Amendments before the Report stage. I suggest that the Report stage should not be taken until after the Recess.

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be addressed to the Government and not to me. I do not arrange the business of the House.

Mr. TERRELL: Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House for an answer to the question. If the right hon. Gentleman desires me to repeat the question I will do so.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to delay the further stages of the East Indian Loan Bill until after the Recess? The second Reading was taken only last night, and the Committee stage is now the first Order on the Paper, and there will no time to table any Amendments. The Bill deals with £50,000,000 and is of great importance, and as there is a considerable body of opinion in the House deeply interested in it and desirous of giving it every consideration, I suggest that this should be done.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the House will not raise any objection to proceeding with this Bill. The borrowing of the money has been approved by the Indian Government, but the sanction of this House is also necessary. From time to time it is necessary, as the borrowing powers become exhausted, to introduce Bills of this character and I do not think that hitherto they have been treated as contentious by any section of the House. I am not pretending to be familiar with the details, but I under-Hand the existing borrowing powers are nearly exhausted, and I am sure it would not be the wish of the House, that the Indian Government should lose this opportunity of going into the market or that the programme of railway and irrigation development on which the prosperity of India so much depends, should be impeded in any way.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a
sum of £19,000,000 unexpended with which the Indian Government could carry on if the Bill were postponed?

Mr. TERRELL: May I press upon the right hon. Gentleman the great importance of giving further time for this Measure. Is he aware of the complete change which has occurred within the last few months in regard to this matter and of the decision of the Legislative Assembly as to where purchases should be made?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now trying to repeat the speech which he made last night.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Sir J. D. REES: The House is conspicuously and proverbially kind and generous to the supporters of unpopular causes. It is for this reason that I hope I may be allowed just now to make a very brief personal explanation. On Monday, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) asked the Leader of the House for time for the discussion of alleged Turkish atrocities. It is well known to the House that at the present moment new terms of peace between Turkey and Greece are under consideration, and that the situation is critical in character. From the point of view of the enemies of Turkey, a report just now of a massacre alleged to have been committed by the Turks would necessarily be timely, in the sense that such massacre would be committed at a time most prejudicial to the interests of the perpetrators. I do not, myself, know—I am wholly unacquainted with any other meaning that can be attached to the word "timely,"— but, when I learned that the House took exception to the word, I immediately did what I always should do—I surrendered my own judgment in a moment, and withdrew me word. Indeed, I seized the end of a rope kindly thrown to me by a friend on the Front Bench, and was very nearly overwhelmed in the flood myself. I did not understand what was going forward. So little did I realise the interpretation which apparently could be put upon a word the meaning of which was obvious to myself, until yesterday, reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, I gathered that the
House was under the impression that I had said something in mitigation of massacre. It is for the purpose of saying in the most unequivocal and emphatic manner that I and my friends regard massacres as detestable and odious, and equally odious and detestable whether committed by Turk, Greek or Armenian, that I take this opportunity of making this brief explanation.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the question of Government training of disabled ex-service men, and to move a Resolution. — [Major John Edwards.]

BRITISH EMPIRE (DEVELOPMENT).

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the undeveloped condition of certain portions of the British Empire, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Harry Brittain.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the question of Workmen's Compensation, and to move a Resolution.— [Mr. T. Griffiths.]

AIR MINISTRY (KENLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) BILL.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Air Ministry (Kenley Common Acquisition) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

BILLS REPORTED.

South Staffordshire Water Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Stock Conversion and Investment Trust (North Western Trust) Bill,

Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Milford Docks Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Rendall to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.

Second Report brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Torquay Corporation Electricity [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], Petition for
2255
additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the protection of the names, uniforms, and badges of associations incorporated by Royal Charter." [Chartered Associations (Protection of Names and Uniforms) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute and incorporate a Joint Board consisting of representatives of the urban district councils of Stretford, Urmston, Ashton-upon-Mersey, and Sale, and the rural district councils of Barton-upon-Irwell and Bucklow, and to authorise such Board to acquire from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Manchester the undertaking lately belonging to the Stretford Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Stretford and District Gas Board Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, 'An Act to confer further powers on the Newhaven and Seaford Water Company; and for other purposes." [Newhaven and Seaford Water Bill [Lords.]

Stretford and District Gas Board Bill [Lords],

Newhaven and Seaford Water Bill [Lords],

Read the First Time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Short title) and 2 (Definition) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to raise fifty million pounds for constructing, extending, and equiping railways in India, and irrigation works, and for other purposes.)

It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State at any time or times to raise in the United Kingdom, as and when necessary, by the creation and issue of capital stock, bonds, debentures, or hills, or partly by one of such modes and partly by another or others, any sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole fifty million pounds sterling, to be applied to—

(1) The construction, extension, equipment and improvement of railways in India by State agency, or through the agency of a company or companies under engagement with the Secretary of State;
(2) The repayment of the principal of any bonds, debentures, or debenture stock issued by any such company under the guarantee of the Secretary of State;
(3) The discharge of any obligations incurred or arising by reason of the purchase by the Secretary of State of any railway constructed or worked in India by any such company, or on the determination of the contract of any such company with the Secretary of State;
(4) The construction, extension, equipment, and improvement of irrigation works in India.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. SUGDEN: I desire to register a protest against this Clause. I am thoroughly aware of the fact that its elimination would kill the Bill, and therefore I simply desire to register a protest and to urge that representations be made to the Government of India to give consideration to the claims of taxpayers and traders of this country. We understand that this Indian loan is to have preferential treatment in our money market, for it is Trustee Stock. There never was a time when the industries of this country
more required the financial support of the banks, and, although it was stated at the annual meetings of the five great banks which have been held during the last two or three months that money and full facilities were available for the trading community, we know that to-day trade and industry in this country are particularly desirous of obtaining cheap money if the 1½ millions workless are to be absorbed in industry. I suggest that if India is to come into our money markets it will not only lift the price of money to the trader, but will also make our municipal and county loans more expensive. While I fully agree that we hold a responsibility in respect of the Indian Empire, I would again affirm that they have a responsibility towards us. I would ask my hon. Friend, who stated last night that there was bad trade and difficulty of obtaining money in India, to study the balance-sheets of some Indian firms, whose profits during the last 18 months or two years have in some cases been as much as six times the amount of their share capital. I do therefore suggest, if profits are being made in such bulk in India, that the Indian people themselves—the financiers, I mean—are well able to finance more of the loans than they are doing or have promised to do.
Many of us hold that State railways anywhere are not equitable, fruitful, or successful, but, so long as we do to some extent accept responsibility for the State railways of India, I say that representations should be made by the Secretary of State for India to the Government of India that they should first of all make these railways pay. Although the passenger rates on these railways have been lifted against the poor Indians, the freight and cargo charges on goods and manufactures have not been lifted to any appreciable extent. While I am not prepared to move an Amendment against the placing of this Indian loan upon our money market, I do suggest that we should make representations that the Indian Government should do something in this matter of freight, so that a fund maybe created from profits and set aside for further capital expenditure. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman will make representations to the responsible people that they should accept more responsibility than they have done, so that these loans to be floated in this country shall
not jeopardise our municipal and county loans and not make it more difficult to obtain cheap money for trade and industry.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): It would be for the convenience of the Committee if I answered the hon. Gentleman's speech at once. May I say, with reference to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), that I am sorry he has not had an opportunity of putting down Amendments, but there will be such an opportunity before the Report stage, which will not be taken to-morrow?

Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can arrange for it to be postponed till after the Easter Recess? There is no urgency about the matter.

Earl WINTERTON: I think that is a reasonable request, although, naturally, I should prefer to get it before the Recess. As a matter of fact, I think it will be postponed till after the Recess.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If there be no Amendment, there will be no Report stage. Would my hon. Friend, as a matter of courtesy, make a verbal amendment, so that there may be a Report stage?

Earl WINTERTON: I will consider that point, and what can be done. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) is under a complete misapprehension as to what this Bill purports to do. He is afraid that the Government of India are asking for preferential treatment in this country. They are asking for nothing of the sort, and, on behalf of the Government of India, I resent the suggestion. By an old Statute, which I think might well be abolished, they have to do what no other borrowing authority in the Empire outside this country has to do. Before they can borrow money in the English money market they have to get permission from this House. They are not asking for any sort of preference. Other portions of the Empire—the Dominion of South Africa for example—have recently put large loans on the market, and we have had no word of protest in this House, nor did we hear that it was wrong to borrow money at a time when trade was depressed. I really do not know what
meaning my hon. Friend attaches to the term "preferential treatment." It has no kind of reference to the proposal in this Bill. I think what my hon. Friend has in mind is the question of the purchase of material in this country, and on that matter I wish to meet the Committee quite frankly. It is a very difficult and delicate subject, and the Committee will realize that I am in this difficulty, that, while naturally anxious to satisfy legitimate opinion in this country, I have to consider the interests of the Government of India at one of the most difficult and critical times in their history, and, more important still, I have to consider the interests of the people of India and their very clearly expressed wishes. When the Dominion of South Africa come to the English money market, as they have done since the War, and as I think New South Wales has come—

Sir F. BANBURY: Any number of them.

Earl WINTERTON: And, as my right hon. Friend says, any number of them have come, no obligation has been imposed upon them to purchase material in this country, and nobody has suggested that they should do so. I speak as one conversant with conditions in South Africa, having business interests in that country, and I believe that a large amount raised by South Africa was for the purpose of railway extension. So far as I know, no other great rival money centre, like Paris or New York, imposes any such obligation.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Berlin did.

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Berlin did, but we do not want to copy the methods of Berlin. Our financial methods before the War were far sounder than those of Berlin. My hon. Friend wants to arrive at the very legitimate goal, namely, that of seeing that as much material as possible is purchased in this country for use on the Indian railways. That is the goal at which we all want to arrive. From a psychological point of view, nothing could be worse at the present time than to emphasise, either in this House or in public discussions generally in this country, that you wish to impose an obligation on the Government and people of India to purchase their material in this country. Nothing could do more harm—and I address this argument more particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell),
who has a great responsibility and largely represents important manufacturers—than that it should go forth that Members of this House had put pressure on the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State to insist on the Indian Government purchasing all their requirements in this country. It would defeat the very object which the hon. Gentleman has in view, namely, that by good commercial feeling between India and this country a large trade should be done in railway and other materials in this country. Of course, it would play into the hands of the extremists in India, who would use it, and from their point of view legitimately use it, as an argument, and they would say, "This is the old, old story. There is the hon. Member for Chippenham getting up and following the traditions of England in trying to make India a close preserve for British traders." That would not only play into the hands of the extremists, but it would stultify the efforts of those in India—and they are many—who at the present time are doing all they can to support not only our general position there, but our trading position there.
What, in effect, are the conditions with regard to this matter? Last year the amount of material—I gave the figures last night, but I will repeat them now— which was purchased for Indian railways was, in round figures, £11,000,000 from the British Isles and only £100,000 from other parts of the world. That, at any rate, does not look as if British manufacturers and workmen were having much difficulty in competing with their rivals and getting this trade. Not only is that so, but in point of fact the bulk of the material which is thus purchased here is, of course, purchased on its merits, and its merits lie in the superior price, quality, and terms of delivery over those of other countries. I have not the slightest doubt, having looked carefully at the figures, that the money that is going to be expended under these loans, when they are raised—and the money will not all be raised in this year— will be expended mainly in this country, and that by attempting to impose an obligation which I could not accept, in view of the opinion expressed by the Government of India, you would defeat your own object, and it would go out that this Committee was trying to shackle
—that would be the argument used by the extremists—the Indian Government, who wish to bring about a most desirable state of affairs, by which a large and ever increasing amount of railway material for India is purchased in this country. Far better leave it to the ordinary operations of the contract system which the Government of India has set up, and which has in effect produced an enormous proportion of British goods, compared with the goods from foreign countries, for these railways.

Mr. TERRELL: I am very much obliged to my Noble Friend for the statement he has made, and, of course, I know the extreme delicacy of the whole position. I felt it extremely difficult, when I was urging the case which I put forward last night, for the Government in so many words to say it would accept the proposal which I then made, but what we have to guard against at this moment is the possibility of British firms competing against countries where they have a collapsed exchange. That is the great difficulty. We cannot compete against Germany or Belgium, or, I should imagine, in some cases against our ally, France. There is a precedent for what I urge in this, that no-one ever heard of a single pennyworth of material which France might be ordering from one of her Colonies being placed with a firm outside France. If France raises a loan for one of her Colonies, the whole of that money is expended in France, and I think the same thing applies to Belgium, and it certainly applied before the War in Germany. We cannot consider this matter in a hurry, dealing with the Second Beading at night and the Committee stage in the morning. We want time for consideration, and while I do not want to press it further now, I hope my Noble Friend will arrange that the next stages of this Bill shall be postponed until after the Easter Recess.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) to ask why the Indian Government had not raised the freightage on goods in India. That was an extraordinary request coming from such a quarter. I have always understood that one of the great crimes of the English railway companies was that they had raised their freights, and that the manufacturers were now tearing their hair in order
to get their freightage reduced. But now comes the hon. Member for Royton, who wants to know why, where he is not concerned to pay, the freightage is not raised.

Mr. SUGDEN: I am sorry the right hon. Baronet has misunderstood me, but in business, as he probably knows better than I do, it is usual that there should be a certain equipoise between returns and expenditure, and when one remembers that the Indian railways are to a major extent State-owned, it will be seen, I think, that the State should not carry what industry should carry, and vice versa. That is why I suggested that the freightage should be more equitable and not, as it is sometimes in this country, inequitable.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the hon. Member to say they are making large profits in India, and if they are making large profits, why raise the freightage?

Mr. SUGDEN: I did not say that.

Sir F. BANBURY: I thought the hon. Member did say that. The hon. Member also wanted to know whether the raising of this money would not interfere with the raising of loans by municipalities—a most extraordinary doctrine. Does he forget that India is a part of this Empire just as much as Manchester is a part of the Empire, and why should Manchester receive a preference which is denied to India? The hon. Member did not, I think, make any protest against the loans which have been raised in the last 12 months by the Dominion Government of Australia, by New Zealand, and by Queensland. I am not aware that the hon. Member suggested that any Clause should be put in which would compel those Dominions to buy their material in England. I have never heard of such a proposal, and I am not aware that when a municipality comes to borrow money such a Clause is put in the loan granted to the municipality.
I remember some years ago that the Conservative party were in opposition, and they came down here on some question which was to be raised with regard to the cotton duties in India, and it was supposed that the Conservative party, which was then only in a minority of something like 32, would defeat the then Liberal Government. It was when Mr.
Gladstone was Prime Minister. We were all "whipped" to come down, and there is no doubt that we could have got a certain number of Members from the Liberal side of the House and could have defeated the Government. In the course of the long period during which I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I can hardly ever remember a speech which has really turned a vote, but on that occasion Lord Wolverhampton, who was then Sir Henry Fowler and Secretary of State for India, made a speech. He wound up by saying, "Mr. Speaker, we are all Members for India," with the consequence that only quite a minute portion of the House went into the Lobby against the Government, and the Government had a great triumph, the majority of Conservative Members, including myself, supporting the then Radical Government of the day, our views having been entirely changed by Sir Henry Fowler's speech, which, as I said before, wound up with these words: "Mr. Speaker, we are all Members for India." I hope the Committee will remember those words. This is a time of serious crisis in India, and I hope we are not going to squabble over a small matter of this sort, which is absolutely in order and which follows the precedent of every Indian loan from time immemorial. The only effect of imposing these obligations would be to encourage the agitators and revolutionaries in India.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I have already spoken on three earlier days on the Bill. I am all for it. I gather that the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) infers that if this money be raised in this country, its raising will be standing in the way of our manufacturers and industries, but I do not think there is anything to support that view. The Paris-Lyons Railway and the Midi Railway and the Nord and Orleans Railways in the last four or five weeks have raised £10,000,000 of money here, and those railways do not make a profit, but they have the guarantee of the French Government behind them. They come here and raise £10,000,000 at such a price that the securities then issued are to-day at a premium, and I say that shows that there is no lack of money for good investments or for sound trading and manufacturing firms at home. I say to my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State:
"Get on with the work. Get the money, and do not wait. Do not fear whether the Indian loans will stand in the way even of the conversion of British Government loans. Get the money from the public, and if you can get the Indian Legislature to buy the goods with that money in England, so much the better." Although I am a member of the Council of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, as well as of the National Union of Manufacturers' Organisation, of which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) is President, I do not take his view. I take the view of my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary that it would be very 'bad policy on our part to try and make any stipulation as to where this money should be spent. What he should try to do is to get the money as cheaply as he can in this country or India, and we should produce the goods as cheaply as possible and of as good quality as possible as well. There is another reason why the issue: of this loan 6hould be got on with at once. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that about 13,000 or 14,000 young officers are out of employment and on the Appointments Department roll. Here is an opportunity of getting some employment for them out in India, in His Majesty's Dominions. If this money is raised and work begun, we shall probably get employment for some of these men.
There was one point which my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary touched upon this afternoon which seemed to me to go to the very kernel of the whole discussion. On the occasions on which I have already spoken on this Bill, I have asked myself the reason why the India Office nowadays still comes and asks for authority here to raise loans of this sort. I was very glad to hear my Noble Friend say, and put it on record, that he takes the view7 that it is absurd that India should come and ask for this permission at all. The law should be revised, and revised so far as it requires the authority of Parliament before India can float loans in Britain. It is an anomaly, and it is a point that I have made on three earlier occasions. He said last night, if I understood him correctly, that there are altered circumstances with regard to India. I do not believe that the security of these
loans is in any way impaired by the alteration. I believe Indian Government loans are perhaps among the safest investments outside Britain into which Englishmen can put their money, but it is true that circumstances connecting Britain with India in legislative matters have altered, and Mr. Speaker has ruled that we cannot discuss matters of domestic import which have been dealt with by the Indian Assembly. Now the Under-Secretary comes down to the House and asks for permission to raise money in London. What is the implication? That a guarantee has been given him by the House of Commons to raise these loans. But such is not the case. The implication in the minds of trustees and others with regard to these loans, although not guaranteed by the House of Commons and the British Government, is that there is a sort of implied or moral guarantee. I think, therefore, when loans in a future Bill are issued under the provisions of Clause 3, the view the Noble Lord takes, that the House should not be again asked to authorise them, is a sound one. Either these loans are, by implication, indirectly —certainly not directly—guaranteed by this House, because authority is asked for them, or they are not. And the public is misled if the authority has no meaning so far as a guarantee is concerned. It really has no meaning or value as security. There is a feeling in my mind that that permission is needless, for another reason. The Treasury would not object to these loans being issued under Clause 3.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech on this Clause. We are now discussing the Clause, and not the whole principle of the Bill. That was settled on Second Reading.

Mr. SAMUEL: As my Noble Friend touched upon that point, I thought I might trespass on your kindness and go a little further, but I should like to ask him whether he can see his way, before this Bill goes through this House, to give us a little more time so that Clause 3 may be dealt with at greater length.

Sir J. D. REES: My Noble Friend dealt with this Clause so clearly and forcibly that I am far from able to improve on what he said. But, having spent 25 years in India, and having been for almost an equal
length of time an Indian railway director, I rise to reinforce what has been said about the absolute impossibility of making any condition that the purchases under these loans should be made in the United Kingdom. I think it is a matter of common knowledge in this House that India, which was formerly inhabited by different races, and is now, has developed something like a common Indian nationality. It is, in consequence, unusually race proud, and nothing more offensive to the vocal class—which, at present, represents, if not all, at any rate is accepted as representing the people of India—could be suggested, nothing more unfortunate could be put forward than any condition that these materials should necessarily be purchased in the United Kingdom. I may say that on one of the largest railways in India, of which I am a director, we have had this question up repeatedly. Every director has wished to give orders to British manufacturers, but whenever it has been abundantly clear that the interests of the owners of the railway, who, to the extent of 13/14ths, in this case, are the taxpayers of India, were at stake, we have considered their interests, and given the order whenever it could be most cheaply and efficiently executed.
There is another reason why it is particularly unfortunate that this matter should be pressed. Reference has been made to the conditions under which these loans are to be raised, and to the fact that the consent of the Secretary of State is necessary under a particular Statute. Several hon. Members have expressed a desire that that Statute should be abolished. I, on the contrary, sincerely hope it will not on any account be repealed, but will be kept in force. Therefore, I am most anxious not to see any points raised, or any conditions suggested, which would lead to an agitation in India for the repeal of the Statute under which a Bill in this House becomes necessary.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is, no doubt, now going into a general discussion. We must only discuss the Clause before the House, which is neither the whole Bill nor the principle governing the Bill.

Sir J. D. REES: You have allowed a rather wide discussion, and I only
incidentally noted that this request would be very likely to lead to an agitation for the purpose I mention. I wanted to dissociate myself entirely from the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), which, I think, on the Indian owners of railways in India cannot but have an unforutnate effect.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: I should also like to dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Chippenham. I think if we in this country were to impose any such obligations upon the Government of India, as have been suggested by the hon. Member, it would raise an issue which might create the greatest difficulties for us in India. Apart from that, I think it would create an absolutely new precedent in this Empire. I will go so far as to say that there is not a single Crown Colony, the smallest colony in the Empire, which raises a loan in this country, which is not given a certain amount of latitude as to the way in which its money is raised or contracts are placed. I have risen, therefore, merely to state that if in this Bill we were to put anything which would enable this Government to bring pressure to bear upon the Indian Government to place contracts in this country, the same thing would apply, and must apply, to the Colonies throughout the Empire. I think that that would be a most dangerous thing. When the hon. Member for Chippenham suggests that that is a policy which France and Belgium adopt with their own colonies, I say that that is a policy which we should never follow in this country.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: I would like to put to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) the question, who is ultimately to find the money which is to be expended? The money is to be found by the taxpayer in India, and his representative in the Legislative Assembly has given a clear indication of the way in which he wishes the money to be laid out. I have heard in India from people not well disposed to the British Government, and I have even heard it in this country, that England is exploiting India. It is a libel; it is absolutely untrue. But let us be careful we do not give colour to that charge by making restrictions of this kind. I am sure the hon. Member for Chippenham will see that it is a reasonable thing I am putting
to him. Let us be careful we do not get into collision with the Legislative Assembly of India upon a matter of this kind. It would be deplorable beyond anything we can conceive. I feel that there is a strong objection in this House to any such inequitable limitation as this would be, and I hope that in India it will be clearly understood that there is no strong opinion in England in favour of any such limitation. The Noble Lord last night and to-day gave us abundant reasons why we need not be afraid of the competition of other countries. The amount of £11,000,000 laid out in British contracts, against £100,000,000 sent to foreigners, tells its own tale, and shows that there is no need for any such limitation as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I think this discussion has served to remind this Committee of the changed relations between the Government at home and the Government of India. I venture to say that the Noble Lord might have shortened the discussion very much if he had dealt at the outset with one or two points. It is obvious that, however much one might desire—and I think the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) is very unhappy in the entire isolation of his view—that this money should be applied entirely to purchases of material in this country, it would be beyond the power of the representative of the Government of India in this House to make that concession, or this House to ask, or the Government of India to give consent, having regard to their duty to the people who will pay the taxes. The Noble Lord will remember that we were asking, in reference to this money last night, whether any financial arrangements have been made. I think he will see the fairness of the question being put as to how far the money market may be affected, how far consultations have gone, and whether any arrangements whatsoever have been made. I think the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) is one that the Government should answer sympathetically, because he is a very loyal supporter of the Government. It is that the Government could have shown, as my Noble Friend could show so easily and readily, that the effect of raising this loan does not in any way prejudice or hamper the ability of the home trader to borrow
money for the conduct of his own business; but my Noble Friend would not deal with that point. I take the view of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). I assume this money will be raised in different proportions up to £50,000,000, and, in view of the fact that there is something like £2,000,000,000, if not more, at this moment on deposit, the suggestion that the raising of £20,000,000 or £25,000,000 over a period of time will seriously prejudice the lending by banks to bonâ-fide borrowers and municipal loans, I think is a very wild suggestion, quite part from the figures. I would say this to my Noble Friend— he will forgive me for the parting shot— that it has been a great pleasure for me to observe that the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) have been roused to proclaim once more that it is the duty of every Government, and, I assume, of every individual when he is spending money, to buy in the cheapest market. It falls ill from them at this moment, because, much as we desire that every penny raised in this country on this Indian Loan should be spent in this country, the fact is that by an Act, for which the Noble Lord and others are responsible, the cost of manufactures in this country has been artifically raised by the introduction of tariffs, and to that extent will prejudice cur opportunity of obtaining the orders when placed.

Mr. LAWSON: I was present at the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, and I remember very well the Measure going through there almost without a word. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) was not present at the Committee stage, neither was he present at the Report stage. Last night, I understand at something like half-past twelve, he wanted to know where the Labour party was, and that after some of us had been sitting on these Benches all day! At this late, or rather early, hour he comes down to the House and wants this Measure delayed until after the Recess. I do not see why. I am not going to help this Government in financial or any other measures, and I cannot see why there should be any guarantee given in connection with this Measure, or that it should be put over until the Recess in order to
suit the number of firms and the financial interests that the hon. Member particularly represents.
While I speak with diffidence upon the matter of Indian finance, I want to say that we on these Benches do not see why, if this money is to be raised here as a loan to India, it should not be spent in this country. We think that a perfectly valid point. At the same time we do not want to drive that point to what I should call the point of insanity. I agree with the interpretation of the Noble Lord. I understand this matter has come before the House for 50 years without any such limitation as those suggested. In anyone else suggests limitations in an ordinary way it should be Labour. As a matter of fact there has been no limitations for 50 years. There is a much more important point to take into consideration. Quite recently the Indian people have been granted a measure of self-government and it is not for us at this particular time to place further limitations than have already been laid upon them during the past half-century. I think I agree with the Noble Lord that it would be doing violence to our economic and our financial professions for that country. I think I ought to say this because we on the Labour Benches stand against these continuous loans for the exploitation of the Colonial and Dominion markets. At the same time we are not going to support any measure which will limit the freedom of the expression of the Indian people, be it financial or in any other way.

Mr. SEDDON: I rise in answer to what was said by the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Lyle-Samuel), when he, made the remark that the Noble Lord might have curtailed the Debate had he answered one or two questions. I am very glad the Debate has not been curtailed, but that there has been an expression of opinion all round the House. The hon. Gentlemen who represent Royton (Mr. Sugden) and Chippenham (Mr. Terrell) have been severely alone in their attitude of mind towards our fellow-subjects in India. We all know that at the present time India is going through a great crisis. We know their aspirations from their Press, which as democratics we must see developed step by step. If the attitude of mind, or expressed thoughts, of the hon. Member
for Royton are to be taken as an indication of the opinion of this House, then I am certain that injury will have been done so far as that great country is concerned. I wish to join—for it is not often one has the opportunity of doing so—in the general chorus of opproval of what the Government is doing, and I sincerely trust the result of this short Debate will be the assurance to India that the two hon. Members who have spoken in so derogatory a manner of the rights and claims of India only represent themselves.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) say that he objected to loans to the Dominions and to other parts of the Empire. Personally, I am only too delighted that loans should be granted for the advantage of our Dominions and the opening of them out in every possible way. I trust the Noble Lord will stick to his Resolution, and pass this Bill without any further delay.

Earl WINTERTON: May I express my great gratitude to the Committee and to all those who have supported this Bill, particularly this Clause (3), which will have a good effect in India? We have had, I think, if I may respectfully say so, a very good Debate. I thought I had answered the point put by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Lyle-Samuel), but the various points brought forward shall be given careful consideration.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 4 (Issue of Bonds) and 5 (Power to redeem securities at a premium, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Transfer books of capital stock.)

In case of the creation and issue of capital stock there shall be kept, either at the office of the Secretary of State in London, or at the Bank of England, books wherein entries may be made of the said capital stock, and wherein assignments or transfers of the same, or any part thereof, may be entered and registered, and may be signed by the parties making such assignments or transfers, or, if such parties be absent, by his, her, or their attorney or attorneys thereunto lawfully authorised by writing under his, her, or their hands and seals, to be attested by two or more credible witnesses; and in such case the person or persons to whom such transfer or transfers shall be made may respectively underwrite his, her, or their acceptance thereof; and no stamp duties whatsoever shall be charged on the said transfers or any of them.

Nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of Section six of the Government of India Act, 1916, with respect to the transfer of India Stock by deed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I asked a question of the Government last night, perhaps a rather silly question, but one which ought to be answered. The Clause says:
No stamp duty whatsoever shall be charged on the said transfers or any of them.
At the present moment there is no transfer stamp duty payable upon British War Loans, India stock, Consols, and suchlike inscribed stocks, but in the case of this East India Loans Bill it might be said that it will not be payable. Why should the Indian Government any more than any other Colonial Government or municipal home corporation be allowed to go free in this matter? When loans are raised by the British Municipal Corporations or Colonial Governments, borrowers compound with the British Revenue, by paying a lump sum to obviate the transfer stamp duty being paid on each transfer after issue. Is that not so?

Sir F. BANBURY: My recollection is that municipalities which do not wish to pay stamp duty on the ordinary transfer of stock compound with the Government, in order that the stock may be free.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is what I said.

Sir F. BANBURY: But this is something like a 50 years' arrangement. The Indian Government loans have always been free of stamp duty.

Mr. SAMUEL: The Commonwealth of Australasia and the Colonies pay compounded stamp duty. They do not get off scot free. I do not see why an exception should be made in the case of Indian—if my argument is well founded.

Earl WINTERTON: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), that under a long-standing Statute no duty is paid in connection with this or other issues by the Government of India. That has always been the custom.

Mr. SAMUEL: I make my protest now, and say that it should not be so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 7 (Nominal amount of securities to be issued), 8 (Application of enactments), 9 (Saving) and 10 (Provisions to Members of the House of Commons) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

DISEASE OF ANIMALS BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SUDAN LOAN (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading, read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The first point that I make in connection with this Bill is that it does not involve the raising by the Sudan Government of any further money, but only authorities the re-allocation of certain moneys already raised. In the past, by several Acts the Government have authorised the guarantee of interest on loans raised in the London market for works in the Sudan. The last such Act was in 1919, and guaranteed interest on a loan of £6,380,000. The funds raised were allocated in the Schedule as follows: £4,900,000 was allocated to the Gezireh or Blue Nile dam scheme, £700,000 to the extension of the Sudan railways, and £400,000 to the Tokar Irrigation Railway scheme. This scheme of finance has been somewhat altered by events. The Tokar scheme has been otherwise financed, the requirements having been met by building a light railway from Tokar to Trinkitat, which has been financed entirely out of the revenues of the Sudan. In consequence of that, the £400,000 allocated by the Schedule to the Tokar irrigation and railway scheme is no longer required for the purpose. On the other hand, the money is required for the first item in the Schedule, the Gezireh dam scheme; for the funds provided for that have turned out to be inadequate. This is due to the War and, in addition, there has been the added price of material, and the more important item of the labour employed upon it. The immediate and
only purpose of this Bill is to re-allocate the £400,000 no longer required for the Tokar scheme to the urgent necessities of the Gezireh scheme. I would only add the further word that large questions of policy are, no doubt, still involved in the completion of the Blue Nile scheme, both from an engineering and from a financial point of view. The present Bill in no way deals with that aspect of the case. Decisions will have to be taken after most mature consideration on these questions of policy. The Bill only provides funds which, in any case, and whatever the ultimate decisions may be, are necessary for" the purpose of carrying on the immediate works upon the Blue Nile dam scheme. Under the circumstances, I trust the House will be able to give me the Second Reading.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. ACLAND: The Bill seems to come to this: that the Treasury is to be asked to guarantee the payment of £400,000 for the Gezireh scheme which was contemplated when the Bill was before the House previously. There have been many Sudan Loan Acts. I myself was responsible for steering two of them through the House, and there have been several since then. I think it is time we learnt a little more than we have heard this afternoon about the progress and possible prospects of the works. I remember making very rosy anticipations of how, if these schemes were carried out and the completion of the Gezireh Dam was brought about, the Gezireh Plain would be irrigated, and would be able to grow the finest cotton to be grown anywhere in the world. I pointed out how necessary this cotton was for the best work in Lancashire, and how keen Lancashire men were to get on with the work of making it up. That was two years before the War. Up to the present, so far as the House is concerned, we have had no report of the progress made. It seems to me to be not unreasonable that when the Treasury is asked to guarantee interest on this extra £400,000, that we should want to know something of the prospects. I have heard a great deal about this Gezireh work. I am not going to repeat what I have heard, because, after all, it is only hearsay and I might be wrong. Without going into any of the definite suggestions as to waste of money
that have been made, I should like to know whether it is not the fact that, during the War, a good deal of work was carried out on the basis that was generally so wasteful, of giving the contractor a pretty considerable percentage for his profit, rather than on the principle of a fixed price for the work done, and running into high expenditure with no very great return to show for it I only ask the question, but I do feel that I wish to know something of the progress of the Gezireh works and how much the Government of the Sudan wish to ask the British Treasury to guarantee. I think until we know a little more about that, the House ought not to give the authority to pass this amending Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: As I understand the Bill, the result of it is that a sum of £400,000 has been voted to the Gezireh railway and irrigation scheme. I would like to know what happened to the Tokar scheme which enabled this £400,000 to be taken from it. If the Tokar scheme had not been necessary, the £400,000 taken from that would have gone in the ordinary course to the British Treasury for the redemption of debt. I should like to know how it is that the estimate for the Gezireh irrigation works was so badly arranged that the extra £400,000 is necessary. The next thing I should like to know is whether there are any means of ascertaining whether this £400,000 will complete the scheme or whether any more money will be wanted. I should like to know whether the Tokar scheme has been finished, and if it has not been finished, why it has not been finished.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) says that if this money was not expended on the Tokar scheme it should have gone back to the Treasury, but this is not a money on vote. That is the whole point. What I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is this, what has happened to the Tokar irrigation works and how is the work generally progressing. The interest so far has been raised and paid by the Sudanese Government. The more they themselves are committed by the guarantee, the heavier will be the burden; and unless we have some assurance that the business is progressing in a
satisfactory way, then it might ultimately result in our being called upon to make good the guarantee to this fund.

Mr. YOUNG: Before I deal with the several points raised, I wish, to reply, in the first place, to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). In the few observations I made in introducing this question to the House, I mentioned that the Tokar Railway scheme had been otherwise dealt with. The, scheme has been altered and a new scheme substituted for the old one. A light railway is being built instead of the bigger railway which was in contemplation, and that is the reason why it is not necessary to allocate for that purpose the £400,000. That point has quite rightly been taken up by other Members. This money will in no case revert to the Treasury. It is Sudanese money and not British money. As I mentioned, it is not a question of raising fresh money; the money is there. It so chances that this money is urgently needed for the Gezireh scheme for these reasons. Whatever decision may be taken about the general future of the Gezireh scheme, expenditure of this amount, at least, and probably more, will be required on the part of the Sudan Government in order to secure the work that has already been done, and which will last until next June, simply for the purpose of making safe the work already blocked out, and on which large sums of money have been spent.
As regards the general feature of the scheme, there has been no question here of over-estimating. The cause why more money is needed now is the unforeseeable cause of the effects of the Great War. It would be unfair to those who have been responsible for the work throughout not to make that quite clear, that it is the unforeseen, inevitable, unpreventable effect of the War. The House will know, if it has studied the previous Debates on this question, that this is a scheme which has been put forward at different times, and one which is full of commercial promise for the Empire in the very important particular of its cotton interest. A vast area capable of growing cotton can be brought under production by means of these works. Very big private commercial interests are already concerned in it, and have already spent large sums in con-
nection with the scheme. Disappointments there have been, as I have said, for the reasons I have given. These disappointments make it necessary to conduct a very close and searching inquiry into the whole scheme. A Report has recently been obtained on the commercial, the financial, and the engineering prospects of the scheme, with a view to a decision being reached on the question of policy as to what is to be done in the time to come. That Report has been received in the course of the last few days, but decisions on that Report have not yet been made. That will, no doubt, be a matter which will come under the consideration of the House at some future time, so that at the present moment it would be premature for me to make any statement as to policy. But I want to make it clear that this allocation for the work already undertaken is not affected by the decisions as to policy, and these decisions cannot be affected by what is done under this Bill. In any case, this expenditure is needed in order to secure the work which has already been done.

Mr. ACLAND: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider whether, in regard to the progress made with the Gezireh works, he can make some short statement as to how the matter is progressing?

Mr. YOUNG: I will consider, and favourably consider that suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech but my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) tells me he did not make any reference to the question of the status of the Sudan. We have seen during the last few months, and even during the last few weeks, an absolute change in the status of Egypt. Egypt before the War was a semi-Protectorate. During the War it became a Protectorate, and His Majesty's Government, quite rightly, I think, have decided to re-establish the independence of Egypt proper, subject to safeguards regarding the Suez Canal, the rights of foreign nationals there, and other matters. I have been diligently searching the newspapers and answers to questions in this House, but I cannot find out whether a change in the status of Egypt has meant any change in the status of Sudan. Before this new orientation of
policy took place in the Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt and the Sudan were ruled by one High Commissioner, though I admit that the High Commissioner in Egypt held a separate post to the High Commissioner in the Sudan, but for all practical purposes Egypt and the Sudan were administered under the same laws, by the same officials, and by the same machinery. The first point I want to know definitely is whether any change has been made in the status of the Sudan? Has it obtained any further measure of independence? Has it been handed over, or is it to be handed over, to the Egyptian Government or is it frankly a British Crown Colony in effect for which this country is responsible? If the answer is that it is a Crown Colony or to be made a Crown Colony for which this country is responsible, I have no objection at all to the principle of this Bill, which seeks to obtain guarantees from the British taxpayer that he will meet the interest on this loan, but if there is any change in the status of the Sudan, if it is to be in a position of semi-independence or linked up with Egypt, then I emphatically protest against a Bill which seeks to impose an obligation on the British taxpayer when he is losing control over the country for which he is to guarantee the loan. Therefore I hope before we give the Second Reading of this Bill that we shall have definite answers to those very simple questions.
As far as the objects of the Bill are concerned, they are excellent. I can conceive no more pressing problem from the industrial point of view of this country, especially from the outlook of Lancashire, than that there should be an extension of the cotton-growing area. For many years we have been becoming more and more dependent upon cotton from the United States of America, and year by year that great continent has been utilising and consuming more and more of its own cotton, and there is, broadly speaking, a smaller margin which we can get hold of in order to maintain the millions of people in Lancashire and Yorkshire who live by the cotton industry. Therefore, anything that can be done to increase the area where cotton is grown ought not only to be supported, but enthusiastically supported, by this House and by the country. Even in Egypt the
cotton-growing area is diminishing owing to the more favourable prices which are received by the fellahin for other products which he can grow more cheaply, and for which he can get a better price. The experiment in British East Africa in cotton growing has not been so favourable as was expected. In other parts of the world the cotton area is not increasing as it should do, and if I receive a satisfactory answer to the first part of my remarks, then I shall welcome this Bill with both hands.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I should like to associate myself with the remarks which have been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. There are two points on which I think we ought to have further information. Under the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1899, the Governor-General of the Sudan is appointed by the British Government, and we ought to know whether in future the Egyptian Government will have the right of appointing the Governor-General, with the British Government concurring in the appointment. I think that is a very important point. It has been said in this Debate that the Sudan is administered by the same laws and the same officials as Egypt, but I would like to point out that the laws which hold good in the Sudan are different to the laws which hold good in Egypt, and the codes, both civil and criminal, are entirely different.
With regard to the question of cotton growing, ever since 1899 experiments have been in steady progress in the Sudan, and, generally speaking, they have been entirely successful. It is of paramount importance that cotton growing in the Sudan should be given the utmost stimulus. We have been told that in Egypt at the present moment the cotton crop is decreasing, but that is not because the Egyptian gets a better price for other products, but because of the attacks of disease the crop coming off the land is becoming less and less every year. For many years the Egyptian put all his eggs into the one basket of cotton, and you could see cotton grown four, five or six years on the same land without the slightest regard to agricultural rotation, and now Egypt is paying the penalty for neglect in that matter, and in a few years' time the amount of cotton grown in Egypt will be relatively negligible. Therefore,
the sooner we can grow cotton extensively in the Sudan, where it is now more or less being grown experimentally, the better.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I think the House will realise that in the present circumstances it would be very undesirable for me to use any expression which is not quite accurate, or any formula which equally is not quite accurate; and without consultation with the Foreign Office, it is not possible for me to say definitely what is the future position of the Sudan. I may say, however, that substantially it will not change from what it is at the present time. I cannot put it clearer than that without consultation with the Foreign Office, in order to get the proper and accurate form.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: We shall all be glad to hear that assurance from the Home Secretary, and I trust the Sudan will always remain under the control of the British Government. My only regret is that this £400,000 was not taken in addition to the original loan, instead of being simply a transfer.

Mr. SWAN: The agreement made a few weeks ago with Egypt has already been mentioned in this Debate. I want to know whether there has been any guarantee to Egypt that the waters of the Nile will not be taken in such a way as to diminish the economic status of Egypt at all. When this scheme was considered three years ago, it was discussed with a large amount of apprehension as to the amount of water which was going to be taken to reclaim land for cotton growing in the Sudan and whether it was going to diminish the amount of land that was under cultivation in Egypt. Hon. Members know that the destiny of Egypt lies beyond the Sudan, and those in the future, who control the waters from the mountains of Abyssinia, and especially the Blue Nile down to the Sudan, hold the key position as far as Egypt is concerned. It is not sufficient to provide that the water to Egypt is only going to come from the White Nile. We want to secure that the amount of water from the Blue Nile shall not be so interfered with as to interfere with cultivation in Egypt, or to make it impossible in the cotton-growing areas to have a progressive population.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I hope the Government will not be asked to enter into the thorny question as to how much of the waters of the Blue Nile will come into Egypt as a result of this agreement. On this question controversy has been settled, and, in fact, it is not a matter of controversy any longer. I quite understand from what the Home Secretary has said that it is impossible to state exactly what will be the position of the Sudan in the future. I think, however, a more important question on the present occasion is how far His Majesty's Government, or any Department of the Government, are responsible for the policy of the Sudan Government in relation to works of this kind. The Sudan is technically a condominium between this country and Egypt. Have the Government any responsibility at all or any control over these works in the Sudan apart from such conditions as they may make contractually in connection with the guarantee of interest on the Sudan loan? If it be true, as I am afraid it is, that no Department of the Government is in a position to exercise any control over the Government of the Sudan, then we are in a difficult position with regard to such works. I am not asking for a legal definition, but I am asking, as a question of fact, how far the question of the Sudan Government is actually under the control of any Department of His Majesty's Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not going to enter into the question of whether the proposed loan is likely to interfere with the water supply of Egypt, because that has been the subject of legal proceedings in Cairo, and we need not bother about it in connection with this loan. The Egyptian Government is a partner in the Government of the Sudan, and in that way they will make their voice heard as to these proposals. I want to ask on what principle we act in guaranteeing loans of this character. It seems to me that, particularly latterly, this Government has developed to a rather extraordinary extent the idea of guaranteeing loans to other Crown Colonies or to States of doubtful position such as the Sudan. It is a policy that in the past has involved the taxpayers of this country in considerable expense. There were loans guaranteed to Turkey on which we had to pay interest. It must not be assumed that because the interest is paid at the
present time we are always sure that our liability will not be called upon. I do not like the indefinite expansion of this idea that you can involve the future taxpayer in heavy expenditure, and wash our hands of any responsibility either for the finance or for the way in which the money is spent.
Here we have in this Gezireh case an estimate which has been enormously exceeded. The scheme has cost a large sum beyond the original estimate, and that excess is now being financed by us and we are to guarantee interest on the loan which the Sudan raises. Probably owing to our guarantee the Sudan is raising the loan at from 1 per cent, to l£ per cent, less interest. By the transfer of this loan from the Tokar Railway to the Gezireh, they are able to get money for the Gezireh at this reduced rate of interest, and that is really a free gift from this country. It is all very well to say that the gift costs us nothing at the moment. It may cost our descendants a large sum of money, and although in this case the transfer of the loan may be perfectly justifiable, I would ask the Secretary of the Treasury to call a halt in these financial arrangements. It is a dangerous path to follow, and may end in financial straits, not only for his successor, but for the generations that succeed us.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: We ought to have some answer from the Treasury Bench to the important question asked by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). I quite understand the Home Secretary does not wish to go into the details of the future settlement, but the question of my Noble Friend referred to the position to-day and not to the future settlement. My Noble Friend asked, what is the control exercised by the Government over loans of this kind I We ought to have an answer to that question. If the Home Secretary cannot give one, then the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs ought to be here to explain the kind of control that is at present exercised, how it is done, and is it done through the High Commissioner in Egypt or by the Foreign Office here? I suggest that the House is put into a most objectionable position when it is asked to pass a Measure of this kind without really know-
ing anything as to the kind of control we exercise. I hope, therefore, we may have an answer to my Noble Friend's very pertinent and very useful question.

Sir J. D. REES: The speeches, I have heard, which have been delivered have been rather critical on this Bill, and, without presuming to criticise the critics, I should like to say that I believe that the objects this Bill has in view are very good and we could not do better than pursue a policy which stimulates the cultivation of Egyptian cotton. Year by year America is consuming more and more of her own crop, and we are getting smaller and smaller supplies of the class of cotton which is grown in Egypt, and of which we hardly get any quantity from other places in the British Empire, except, perhaps, Nyassaland. I did not like this discussion to close without saying a word in favour of the objects of this Bill.

Mr. YOUNG: I will say a word or two in reply to the question which has been put as to the extent of the control which is exercised over the expenditure of sums such as these upon works like the Blue Nile Dam. As to the relations between us and the Sudan there are, of course, two branches of that subject. The first was raised in the question by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E Percy) and was reinforced by other speakers, but on it Members of this House are, of course, as much in possession of the facts as anyone can be. The relations between the Sudan and Egypt and Great Britain are well known. The extent of the administrative control exercised under such circumstances over the Government of a State which has the status of a State like the Sudan is also well known. The control is very real and effective. These are matters of common knowledge. What is more important is what immediate additional control can be exercised. That is embodied in the terms on which this money is provided. When the Sudan, or anyone else, comes to the British Government and asks for the assistance of British credit in order to enable them to raise a loan they ask in substance for money from the Exchequer. When that request is made, and when we consent to give a guarantee we impose conditions in one form or another. Practically what is done is this. We look at the problem
and see whether it is a good paying proposition or not. We look at the scheme which has been prepared for carrying out the work to see whether it is a practicable scheme. We look at the financial organisation and see whether efficient machinery for financial control has been established by those asking for the money. All these things are done through the agency of the British Treasury with such expert knowledge as the Treasury can bring to bear on such a topic when the proposition is put to the Government. Such were the precautions taken at the time at which this guarantee was first asked for, and these precautions will be repeated if any further guarantees be asked for. In that way we secure a practical, efficient, and businesslike administration of the funds which are raised under the guarantee.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: The hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury has informed us that certain precautions were taken when the guarantee was asked for. I think he might have told us further the extent of the land that is to come under the scope of the scheme, the terms on which the land will be let, what people will hold it, what rent will be received, and whether that rent will be a first charge to provide for the interest on this loan. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke only in a general way. We want a little more definite information.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

JURIES BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is quite a- short Bill. The main object of it is to simplify and make less expensive the compilation of jury lists, and, as a Bill for that purpose is necessary, the opportunity has been taken to put in two or three very small changes which have been recommended by the Committee over which Lord Mersey presided. The House may recollect that at the present moment the procedure for compiling jury lists is complicated and expensive. In the case of a county, the
clerk to the county council sends out requisitions. This involves a great deal expensive work, and there is much expensive printing, and a separate jury list is drawn up. All this will be abolished by the provisions of this Bill. Equally in boroughs they have a burgess roll, and a similar reform is to be effected there. What we propose is this. When the autumn list of electors is being prepared, the overseer shall be instructed in each parish to mark the names of those who are qualified and now act as jurymen. The letter "J" will be placed before the name of the ordinary juror, and the letters "S J" before the names of those qualified to act as special jurors. The list of electors will be printed with the letters indicated before the names of the electors, and it will thus indicate the people liable to act as jurymen. Consequently, practically the whole of expense of printing separate jury lists will be saved. There will be a small additional amount of outlay incurred, but in most parishes it will be very small indeed, and in some cases the change will cost nothing at all. I am told that, taking Wands-worth for example, the compilation of jury lists now costs from £500 to £600 a year. After the first year under our plan, it will be possible to do the work for from £12 to £15. Thus, all over the country there will be a very substantial saving if this proposal is accepted. There are minor provisions which are very necessary to enable persons whose names appear on the list to appeal if they think they are not liable to serve.
That is the main object of the Bill, but, as I have said, there are one or two small matters which have been added. In the first place there is power given to the sheriff to excuse the attendance of jurors either at Courts of Quarter-Sessions or at assizes if there is proper ground for doing so. As it is at present a person who wants to be excused has to apply to the Court when it is sitting, although as a matter of fact it has very often been the case in the past that the sheriff has given permission to jurors not to attend, and has subsequently explained the position to the judge sitting in Court. This Bill gives a sheriff power to excuse any juror who satisfies him that he or she has really a good valid reason for being excused. Of course, there is always the danger that some
sheriff might pack a jury, and, in order to avoid that, there is a provision, which will be found in Clause 3 (b), that he must show to the Court or Judge all the applications, the letters and the evidence accompanying them, and the reasons for any excuse that he has allowed.
There is also a change in the jury list for quarter-sessions boroughs. At present, in quarter-sessions boroughs, the jurors are picked—I think that is about the only word that one can use—by the town clerk from the burgess roll, and the burgess roll, contains the names of numerous people who are neither liable nor qualified to be jurors. Lord Mersey's Committee recommended that that should be changed, and we have now provided that, in the case of a quarter-sessions borough, the part of the register which applies to that borough shall be the jury list for that borough. That will be perfectly simple and quite easily worked, and will remedy that which the Committee recommended should be remedied. Then there is a small provision which was not recommended by the Mersey Committee, but which has arisen from the proposed change in the method of compiling the lists. I need hardly assure the House that in matters of this kind we always consult His Majesty's Judges, and they have attached considerable importance to the Court knowing what was the occupation of any juryman, and, more especially, of any special juryman, having regard to the trial of trade cases and things of that kind. Therefore, we have provided that when a juryman is summoned there shall be a reply, on the postcard which he will be required to send, setting out what his occupation is. That, without having to go to all the expense of a separate column stating what the profession, occupation or calling of the juryman is, will enable the Court to have the necessary information at the expense only of a few halfpenny postcards.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Three-halfpenny postcards!

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, three-halfpenny postcards. I am rather an optimist, and I should like to see that altered. The Bill has beer, drafted after careful consideration. The House may recollect that a Bill was introduced in another place last year for the special purpoee of being considered by registration officers and
those who are interested in the matter. There has been careful consultation, and, as a result of that consultation, this Bill has been brought in. So far as I know, at any rate outside this House amongst those who are chiefly concerned, it is an agreed Measure.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad to hear from the Home Secretary that this is a Bill which is going to save money, and I only hope that his prognostications will be realised. While, however, I should support a Bill which is going to save money, this Bill, apparently, introduces new features of an extremely objectionable kind. I would ask the House to look at Clause 2, which says:
Every person whose name is included in the jurors books as a juror or special juror shall be liable to serve as such, notwithstanding that he may have been entitled by reason of some disqualification or exemption to claim that he ought not to be marked in the electors list as a juror or special juror.
It is true that earlier in the Bill, in Clause 1 (4), it says:
If any person who is marked as a juror or as a special juror in any of the electors lists for the autumn register claims that by reason of some disqualification or exemption he ought not to be so marked, he may, at any time within the period within which a claim to be registered as an elector may be made"—
I do not know what period that is—
apply in the prescribed manner to the registration officer to have the mark placed against his name removed.
Sub-section (5) goes on to say:
If the registration officer refuses to comply with an application made under the last preceding Sub-section or fails to notify to the applicant within the prescribed time his decision thereon, the applicant may, within fourteen days next after the date on which the refusal of the registration officer is notified to him or the expiration of the prescribed time, as the case may be, apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for a declaration that he ought not to be marked as a juror or as a special juror, as the case may be.
Why, because we want to save money, which is a laudable object, should we put the unfortunate citizens of this country to all the trouble and expense which may be entailed under these provisions? Hitherto, unless I am very much mistaken, if a person over 60—I am not sure that the age was not altered during the War to 65, but I do not know whether that was made permanent—if a person who had reached the age limit for exemption was summoned and appeared in
court, he could say to the Judge that he was over the age limit, and, therefore, exempt; and if he was a Member of Parliament he could appear and say so to the Judge, when he would be exempted. Under this Bill, however, any one of us may be put on the jury list and may not happen to see it. How many Members of this House, for instance, at the present moment know whether they are on the electors' list OT not? If they have looked on the churoh door, or have gone to their party office and asked the agent to look up the list of voters, they will know whether they are on the list or not, but unless they have done that they do not know. I do not know whether I am on the list or not. The list is revised every year—in some cases it is revised every six months—and, unless I make a special effort to find out whether I am on the list or not, I do not know. If this Bill is passed, a vast number of people who are exempt by law will not know whether they are on the list or not, and they may be summoned to appear. Possibly some Member of this House, who may have a, Motion down supporting, or even opposing the Government, may be summoned to servo on a jury, and may not know that his name was on the list. He says he is a Member of Parliament, but, because he has not been to the registration office and then to a court of summary jurisdiction, he may be detained at the court and not allowed to come down to support the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or to oppose him, as the case may be. Why should we be put to all this trouble? It is not going to save any money in that case, and I cannot see why, if the registration officer marks the list of jurors wrongly, the people whose names he has wrongly marked shall not be exempt, as they are at the present moment. We are going to be put under all these officials, and we are presumed to know what they have done. Certainly, there is a limit of 14 days, but it is quite possible that a person may be away, or may not get a letter; and busy men do not always see every letter that is sent to them. If, however, he has not done something within 14 days, he is bound to serve if he is summoned.
Moreover, all this will recur every year, and I am not sure that it will not recur twice a year. Why are we to be put to all the trouble of rooting up these lists to see whether we have been put
rightly or wrongly on the Jury List? There is no penalty on the registration officer, and you are putting a tremendous power in his hands. If he has a grudge against anyone, there is nothing to prevent him from putting his name on the list, and there is no penalty on him for having done so. I hope that when the Bill goes to the Committee they will certainly omit Clause 2. I suppose that Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Clause I will have to stand with certain modifications, but I certainly think that Clause 2 ought to be omitted, and it ought to be made clear that, if a person is exempt owing to his being over age, or a Member of Parliament, or for any other reason, that exemption shall hold good, and that, if he has been put wrongly on the register, he should not be compelled to go through all the formalities and trouble of writing to the registration officer and appearing before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Consider the case of a busy man who has to go and wait, perhaps, in one of the police courts of his town. I have sometimes been in a police court, and I have found that magistrates are not always absolutely punctual. Why should we have to wait two or three hours because some registration officer has made a stupid mistake? I trust that the Home Secretary will give attention to my few remarks, and will insist upon the Government making some alterations in the Bill.

Mr. SHORTT: With the permission of the House, I should like to make an explanation with regard to Clause 2. If the House will look at the Schedule of enactments to be repealed, they will see that Sections 11 to 15 of the Juries Act, 1870, are proposed to be repealed. That is the ordinary way of drafting. This Clause 2 is simply Section 12 of the Act of 1870, and it has been the law of the land ever since that time without any of the results which my right hon. Friend anticipates.

Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we should refer to the Schedule. I should be glad if he could inform us whether it is necessary that the Bill should be in this form, or whether, instead of these complicated provisions in the Schedule, it would not be possible to pass a simple Measure containing all the law relating to juries? The first part
of the Schedule, which shows what Sections are to be cut out and what are to be partly repealed, surely does not help to make the matter simpler, and one would have thought that it might have been possible, now that three or four earlier Measures are here dealt with, to draw up one Bill dealing with the whole matter. Then there is the question whether the registration officers now engaged will receive any further remuneration for the extra work involved. I do not know if it is possible, while we are discussing this Bill, to refer to what is, perhaps, the most serious omission, namely, that no allowance is to be made to jurymen for their attendance. I have only just now intervened in this discussion, and have not had an opportunity of seeing the Report of the Committee over which Lord Mersey presided, but I should be glad to learn if that subject of remuneration, or at least of some payment, to jurymen, even if only to cover their actual expenses of attendance, was discussed by that Committee. My sympathies are always with the jurymen, f think that very often they are treated most inconsiderately, apart from the fact that they receive no payment. Very often the fact that they are in attendance is forgotten altogether while the Court is sitting, and frequently they are made to wait three, four, and five days, when actually their attendance is not necessary. In that they have a great grievance. My sympathies are altogether with the man who is brought away from his farm or from some distant part of the county, and is made to wait, perhaps, at the Assizes for a week or more, without being called, and no allowance whatever is made to him even in respect of his travelling expenses. He has to be in a Court where every official is paid, and where every counsel engaged is there not merely to carry out the administration of justice, but also to receive very often substantial fees; and it is difficult to understand why the juryman, who is an essential part of the machinery for the administration of justice, should be the only one who is excluded from any provision for meeting his expenses. I do not think it is suggested that there should be any substantial amount paid him, but I shall be glad to learn whether the Committee over which Lord Mersey presided
had regard to that very widespread grievance that presses specially hardly upon the poor man who sometimes has to take his part on juries.
6.0 P.M.
There is one way in which perhaps those expenses might be met. I know the suggestion will be made that this involves an increased expenditure on the State. I am not aware of the date of the report of Lord Mersey's Committee, but on that occasion did they consider again the grievances which were voiced, I think, in some hundreds of courts only a few months ago when the grand juries were revised? I know there was a difference of opinion expressed, but generally speaking the chairman of Quarter Sessions themselves, as well as a great many judges, expressed the opinion that the calling of the grand jury was an expense that the State should no longer tolerate. I have seen different estimates given as to the cost of grand juries, but certainly the whole expenditure must run into scores of thousands of pounds. Did the Committee consider whether the summoning of a grand jury was essential to the administration of justice, and did they have regard to the opinions expressed by the majority of the chairman of the Quarter Sessions concerned? There is one smaller point on which I should be glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's opinion and that is as to the power of the sheriff to exclude a juror from attendance. In Clause 3 that power is given and in Clause 4 provisions are made as to sheriffs in borough courts. In many borough courts there are no sheriffs at all. What provision will be made for the Quarter Sessions in a town like Plymouth where there is no sheriff? Who will exercise the power which the sheriffs will exercise in a city like Exeter? I assume it is intended that there shall be a power applying to every Quarter Sessions throughout the country, and I shall be glad to know who will exercise the power in county boroughs.

Mr. HAILWOOD: I rise to draw attention to another very serious omission from the Bill, namely, that it makes no provision whatever for exempting women who are living in religious community, such as nuns and other congregations, from jury service. I raised this question last Session, and the Home Secretary gave me a sympathetic reply, and I was fully under the impression that at the first
opportunity this glaring anomaly would be rectified. It appears to me that this is an opportunity for altering the law as it now stands. It seems to me that the law is left just as it was with regard to juries. Under the Acts of 1825 and 1870 certain men are exempt from service. Barristers, solicitors, Members of Parliament, magistrates, and so on are exempted. Of course all these various offices and professions related to men only. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is aware that since then votes have been given to women, and that in consequence of being on the voters' list women also have to serve on juries and we are living in quite a different world from that of 1825 or 1870. If lists had been compiled exempting certain men from service I am quite sure that if women had had votes in those days certain women would have been exempted. Before a Bill of this sort is passed consideration ought to be given to the women I have mentioned. I cannot think of anything more harsh or cruel than to drag a nun out of a convent to sit on a jury in some of the cases which are heard in court.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Has it ever been done?

Mr. HAILWOOD: It may not have been done, but the law says she has to serve unless she gets special exemption from the sheriff or through the Court, and while we are passing a Juries Bill the law ought to be amended so as to exempt women of this sort. I cannot for the life of me see that justice would be served by having such women serving on juries. Their knowledge of the world is very often very slight and remote, and I do not think they are in any way qualified to hear evidence in Court and to come to a right decision on some of the cases which might come before them, and I plead with the Home Secretary to take this opportunity of amending the Bill in such a way as to exclude nuns and women living in religious community from service on juries.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I reply to the right hon. Gentleman, who quoted to me Section 12 of the Act of 1870. May I quote Section 13 of that Act, which says:
If any overseer without reasonable excuse being allowed by the Justice or Justices having cognisance of the case insert in the list of persons qualified to serve as jurors prepared by him the name of any person whose name ought not to have been Inserted therein or omit therefrom the name
of any person whose name ought not to have been omitted he shall on summary conviction be liable to a penalty for each offence not exceeding 40s.
There is a very good reason for the overseer not to insert in the list a person who is not qualified to act as a juryman, and that safeguard does not appear in the Bill.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) is to be found in the definition Clause—
The expression 'Sheriff' includes any person charged with the return of juries.
With regard to the Clause which my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) has just quoted, I was going to point out they very substantial difference between the existing law and this Bill. I do not see any objection to the alteration, but there is one question that I want to ask. Is the sheriff or the registration officer to have a real discretion as to excluding people who are legally bound to serve'? It is rather difficult to follow in the Bill. It is a very ticklish power if it is given. Is he to exercise his discretion, whether the nun is on the jury list or not, or is he bound by the existing rules to say to the nun, "You are qualified; I must put you on the list. I have no power to exempt you"?

Mr. SHORTT: It is not a question of exclusion from the list. It is only where a person is summoned and asks to be excused from serving on that particular jury. That is all the discretion that is given to the sheriff.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I understood the Bill was to save expense in this way. You were to take the existing electors' list—it is not a jury list at all—and instead of making up a fresh jury list the sheriff was to make a note against each person's name—C, qualified to serve as a common juryman, or S, qualified to serve as a special juryman—and he would leave nothing against Members of Parliament, because we should be exempt. The sheriff has to do that, as I understand it, and in a borough the clerk of the peace would have to do it. Has the man who makes those marks jurisdiction to say, "Though I know a nun is a person against whose name I ought to mark a C, either I do not like nuns or I think it undesirable that they should be on juries, and I leave her out," or is he bound to put her on the list?

Mr. SHORTT: The sheriff or the clerk of the peace, the person responsible for the compilation of the list, is the person, to whom a man or woman claiming exemption has to apply, and there is an appeal to Petty Sessions. I thought my hon. and learned Friend was dealing with the new power of the sheriff to grant exemption at a particular court from attending at the particular court for some special reason, and not to striking the name off the list.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) in desiring to call attention to the complication which arises from legislation by reference. I am sure this Schedule is extremely complicated, and I should like to see some Committee appointed for the purpose of seeing whether something cannot be done to make the law more easily understood than it is at present. I have raised this question on several occasions, and I recently put down a question to the Prime Minister. I understand it is not impossible to make Acts of Parliament much simpler than they are. I suggested on a previous occasion that when there is a reference to an Act of Parliament, the particular Section should be set out at the foot of the Bill, so that when you have to construe an Act you have some knowledge of what it is. At present you have to hunt through old Acts to see what these Sections are. I am 6ure the first reference to the Juries Act of 1825 in the Schedule to this Bill at nothing else but chaos. The whole subject of juries, to my mind, wants revising. It is complicated to the extreme and it is difficult to know who are and who are not exempted. The law is different in the Assizes from what it is in some instances in Quarter Sessions, and altogether I think the whole thing wants to be brought up to date. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider, if not an entirely new Bill, at any rate, a consolidation Bill, that we might know what the whole question is? I had expected to hear something about grand juries. To my mind, grand juries are quite unnecessary. I have observed in different Courts that judges, chairmen of Quarter Sessions and others held different views upon the matter, but, upon the whole, I think that the consensus of opinion is that grand juries are unnecessary and might very well be dis-
pensed with. I think, therefore, it ie a pity they are not included in this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that does not arise here.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: With great respect I was wondering whether a Clause applying to grand juries ought not to be included in this Bill. If I may proceed on those lines, I believe that there is only one reason why grand juries are considered—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot now go into that.

Mr. RENDALL: There are certain professional classes who are at present excluded from service on juries and who, I think, ought not to be excluded as classes, but where necessary the individuals could be excluded. Take the lower branch of the legal profession—that of solicitors. [HON. MEMBEKS: "Why lower?"] They are called that. Originally the reason for excluding solicitors from jury service was that they were supposed to have duties in connection with litigation which would make it undesirable that they should be members of the jury. We know that the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the working of Courts or litigation, and consequently there is no reason why they should be excluded from duties which fall on ordinary citizens. It is a great pity then to adhere to an exemption which puts certain classes of persons in a preferential position. I would like to know if it is possible to amend this Bill in Committee in the direction of getting rid of all exemption of classes, and allowing each individual who wants to be exempted to apply to the officer set up under this Bill for the purpose of deciding the matter. I do think that that is something which ought to be done, and, if we are not going to have a further Bill later on dealing with this matter, this is the proper time to do it. I will be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us now whether it is possible to make that alteration.

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that I cannot give a ruling for the Chairman of Committees.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time" put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES, Etc.) BILL.

Order for Second Eeading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The object of the Bill is to substitute yearly for half-yearly audits in the accounts of rural district councils, boards of guardians, and overseers of the poor. The accounts of all the other classes of local authorities, such as county councils, borough councils, urban district councils, and parish councils, are already audited yearly. The object of introducing a yearly instead of a half-yearly audit is really to save money, both for the local authorities and for the Ministry. At present there is a considerable amount of expenditure and loss of time involved in preparing the accounts and submitting them for audit twice a year, and for a long time it has been felt to be desirable to have these bodies put on the same basis as the other local authorities. The effect of the change which it is sought to make will incidentally be that there will be a considerable reduction effected in the amount of the audit Stamp Duty paid by guardians and rural district councils. I mention this specially because I have been asked a question about audit Stamp Duty, and I feel rather strongly on the matter, and I am glad to provide a method of reducing the amount of that duty by this means, for by this change the scale of payment for auditing becomes proportionately less, because the same amount of time is taken up in auditing a small amount as in auditing a large amount. Other expenses will also be reduced.
The only objection which might be raised against this proposal would be that the accounts of these bodies will be checked only once a year instead of every six months. But in the case of all the other local authorities yearly audits have always been the rule, and it has not been found that the yearly check has been insufficient, but in order to deal with any contingency that might arise I have taken powers in the Bill to direct an extraordinary audit in any case where it seems necessary, or where there appear to be any grounds for apprehension that the board of guardians or other authorities coming under this Bill are not regulating
their accounts in a satisfactory manner. The only exception that I have to make under this Bill is that of the Metropolitan board of guardians and the Metropolitan joint Poor Law bodies. The reason is that the method by which the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund is regulated is on a half-yearly basis, and sums cannot be transferred to the receiving authority until the audit is taken, and therefore in order to carry out the scheme, which was sanctioned in connection with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund last Session, the six-months audit has to be retained. Under Clause 3 I am providing a method of enabling borough councils to have a system of auditing by district auditors if they so desire. At present some 60 boroughs out of 350 are being audited by district auditors. I understand that a number of borough councils would prefer to have district auditing rather than to appoint outside auditors, but at present they can only exercise this power by Statutory enactment embodied in some local Act, and though a number of them include this power in some general private Bill which they bring forward, other boroughs do not think the subject of sufficient importance to justify the expense of coming to the House on a private Bill, and so we have this Clause to enable local authorities, if they wish, to have district auditing instead of appointing outside auditors without going to the trouble and expense of obtaining a private Act. I think that that explains the purpose of this Measure which, though small in its scope, has been asked for by local bodies and which will operate in the direction of saving public expenditure.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: This Bill applies only to England and Wales. Is there any intention of bringing any similar Bill to apply to Scotland?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Under Subsection (2) of Clause 3 will the cost of the audit be borne by the funds of the borough council or out of the Treasury?

Sir A. MOND: I am not quite sure, but I think it will fall on my Vote. As regards the question of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), this Bill applies only to England and Wales, and I am not aware whether it is necessary to consider the advisability of introducing a similar Bill for Scotland.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does that mean that the method in Scotland is thoroughly satisfactory?

Sir A. MOND: Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMBS HOPE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Army Act and Air Force Act to be enforced for specified times.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major-General SEELY: I desire to mention a point which has been raised previously. That is the great inconvenience of having the Army Act and the Air Force Act combined in one Bill. It would be very much better for every reason if we had separate Bills. The fact is that this combination of the two in one is part of the bad old plan, which we have now happily abandoned, of combining the Army and Air Force under one Secretary of State and in other ways. There is no special relation between the Army and the Air Force which does not exist as between the Air Force and the Royal Navy. It is a mistaken view and it is not in the least bit true. If the Under-Secretary of State for War will look through this Bill before him and the notes of the Clauses, he will see the extreme inconvenience of the method now adopted. In all sorts of ways the terms of service of the Air Force are wholly different from the terms of service of the Army, and they are not differences in a small degree but differences in kind. All this has to be explained in various Clauses, notably Clauses 6, 7 and 10, where it is clearly stated:
References in this part of the Act to the Army Act shall be deemed to include references to the Air Force Act, and those provisions shall in their application to the Air Force have effect subject to any of the
general modifications set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917, which apply.
I am reluctant to delay the Committee by making any dilatory Motion, but I would invite my hon. and gallant Friend and the Secretary of State for Air, if he is in the House, to tell us that they will put an end to this" system which confuses the issue before the Committee, which presumes a connection between the Army and the Air Force, leaving out the Navy, which is wholly remote from truth, which originated during the brief period when it was attempted to make this combination, fortunately now abandoned, and which can only tend to confusion not only in this Committee but also towards confusion in all kinds of ways in the administration. It may be said that this Act also includes the Royal Marines. You will remember, Mr. Hope, in days gone by, in the Debates on the Army (Annual) Bill, objection was frequently taken to the inconvenience of including the Royal Marines in the Bill. In the case of the Marines, no principle is involved, but in the case of the Air Force a point of really high principle is involved. It is not only inconvenient, but a matter of high policy not to confuse the Army and the Air Force. Each should have its own separate Annual Act. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he can give an assurance that in future he will provide for two separate Bills?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I wish to speak in a completely opposite direction. I know that an attempt is being made to set up two different establishments which time and experience will show are not required. It is done merely to give someone a particular show that he cannot get in any other way. The Army Annual Act is mostly a disciplinary measure. As a rule, in the first and second Clauses it states how many men are to be maintained for the year, but that total is only nominal, for since I have been a member of the House there has always been a proviso that the total can be more or less, as circumstances require. Beyond the number, and a reference to billeting, there is not a word in the Act that does not relate to discipline. What the right hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) suggests is that there shall be one kind of discipline for the Air Force
and another kind for the Army. It is a ridiculous fad that he has followed for the last half-dozen years, that there should be an absolute disconnection between the Air Force and the Army. Even the sailors of the Navy, when on land in this country, come under this Act for disciplinary purposes.

Major-General SEELY: The Royal Marines.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: The Royal Marines usually work in connection with the ships and are part of the Navy. This fetish of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seeley) is absurd. My hon. and gallant Friend wants two nights out instead of one. The discussion of the Bill generally offers opportunities for obstruction and a wasting of the time and patience of the House. This year, luckily, the Bill has come on in the ordinary hours. I certainly should not like it to appear on the Records of the House that the only speech delivered in relation to this Bill was the hardy annual of my right hon. and gallant Friend, and his demand that there should be another complete administration and another Bill because the discipline applying to the Army is not suitable to the Air Service. Anything more ridiculous I cannot imagine. Luckily the Government of the day have had the sense never to take notice of the claim of my right hon. and gallant Friend. In these days of the Geddes Axe he would add to expense by the passing of a separate Bill. Most of the men of the Air Force are on the land. For one flier there are possibly 200 or 300 or even 400 men on land, or if the repair of machines and so forth are taken into account, the number might be even 800 or 900.

Mr. MOSLEY: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, having had no connection of any kind with the problems of the air, sees fit to ridicule the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), who has had a long and intimate connection with the Air Service. The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) does not appear' to realise in what the duty of the Air Service consists or the kind of discipline that is required. In the Air Service a man is kept for one of two things, either to fly or to keep machines and engines in
proper repair; he has not to polish buttons or to march about a barrack square. The very nature of his employment is fundamentally different in every respect from the employment of the ordinary military man, and the characteristics required differ widely from the kind of character which is desirable in military service. All that is required of the Air Service mechanic is mechanical proficiency, granted the ordinary measure of good conduct that is required in civilian life and obedience to the exigencies of the Service. Military discipline is quite unsuitable, and in most respects quite unnecessary, in regard to the problems of the Air Service. I myself, having had a slight connection with the Air Service, must agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Would it not be more sensible to suggest that the Air Force should come under the civil authority and not under the Army?

Mr. MOSLEY: The Air Force is neither civil nor military. It is not subject to the ordinary requirements of military service. It is a service distinct and altogether apart from the Army or the Navy or civilian life. It is a new arm. Why it should be shackled and tied by military traditions, which are entirely unsuited to it, passes my understanding. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke, in saying that the argument of my right hon. and gallant Friend is ridiculous shows that he has not devoted any great time to an investigation of the kind of service required of Air Force men. Had he done so, I think he would agree, with his great knowledge of military discipline, that the ordinary process of that discipline is entirely unsuited to the Air Force.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): This question has occupied the attention of the Air Ministry since I have been there during the past year, and there have been considerable discussions as to whether the Service would be assisted by having its own Annual Act. There are many reasons why we should like to have our own Act. It would be a further hall-mark of an independent and separate Service. Last year conditions were such that the Bill was not presented to the House. This
year the pressure of business has to some extent interfered with a decision being taken on the matter. I shall, however, continue to press for a separate Air Force (Annual) Bill. What decision will be reached by the Cabinet it is not for me to say. Taking it all round I have thought that so much of our Service is common to both Services that it is not a matter which one need press unduly in the present state of public opinion, but I hope that nothing has been said to-day which will prevent the Air Ministry from raising this question on another occasion.

Major-General SEELY: I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State for Air has had this under consideration, and that it is proposed to bring in a separate Air Force Bill. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will not confine himself to that. There is no saving of time. Until there is a separate Air Force Bill brought before the House I shall always raise this protest, and so will all who care for the maintenance of the Air Service. The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) speaks on air matters as if he were Noah coming out of the Ark. He seems to have forgotten completely all that has happened. He protests that it is quite unnecessary to raise the question of having separate Army and Air Force Bills, because the Army and the Air Force had much better remain together. He seems to have forgotten that the Air Force has a separate Minister.

Lieut-Colonel WARD: I said that the discipline was the same, or ought to be, unless the Air Force was placed under civilian authority.

Major-General SEELY: The hon. and gallant Member said much more than that. He said that at this time of Geddes Committee economies we ought not to have a separate service and that a separate service was a persistent notion of mine. It is a persistent notion. It is a notion that has succeeded and prevailed, and has been carried through by the Government to complete fruition with this one solitary exception. My hon. and gallant Friend wants economy and wants things amalgamated. Let him work for the amalgamation of all three services, and not confuse the issue by joining together only the two which are not by
any means the most comparable either in discipline or in anything else. The Navy and the Air Service are much more closely akin than the Army and the Air Force.

Sir C. YATE: With an Air Marshal commanding in Iraq how would the right hon. Gentleman carry on discipline if he had two separate Acts?

Major-General SEELY: I am not in charge of the Air Force, but since the question is raised, it is quite clear that it would be much more convenient, as the Secretary of State for Air has said, to have an Army (Annual) Act and an Air Force (Annual) Act. There are now many differencee. Although the two services are included in one Bill, there are cross references all through, in Clauses 6, 10, and so on. It would be much more convenient to have them set out separately and for every reason—for convenience of drafting, and high principle—there should be two separate Acts, and I shall press the matter on every opportunity.

Colonel Sir J. GREIG: I think the right hon. Gentleman and those who support his views, are too meticulous as to the keeping separate of these forces. Everybody knows that the Army Annual Act except when an alteration is going to be made in the body of the military forces of the country is purely a continuing Act, and is only necessary because it has been decided in the course of our constitutional history that the keeping of a standing army in this country without the consent of Parliament is against the law. The same principle which applies to the Army applies also to the Air Force, and the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917, provides that
His Majesty is entitled to raise ani maintain the Air Force.
These two forces have separate codes of discipline, and owing to this constitutional requirement these codes of discipline come to an end every year at a particular period. This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows much better than I do, is to extend those periods again for another year. What would be the use of having two Acts of Parliament to do so? It is quite true that in this annual Bill you can alter the numbers for the Army, and that also applies to the Air Force, and it may be that there are
Amendments in the body of the code which could be applied separately. But the Bill is simply one required to conform to our Constitution, and I do not see the necessity for separate Acts to deal with two forces which are in a sense both land forces. The Navy has its own particular code. It is quite different from the Air Force or the Army, but as regards these two forces, however you may separate them otherwise, I do not see there is any necessity to have separate Acts.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Prices in respect of billeting.)

There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pursuance of the Army Act or the Air Force Act the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act,

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HOGGE: This Clause raises a considerable number of anomalies. The real gist of the Clause is in the Schedule dealing with the meals provided for the soldier when he is billeted in what is described as a victualling house. Some of the payments seem open to question. For instance, if soldiers lodge and receive attendance, the charge is 10d. per night for the first soldier, and 8d. per night for each additional soldier.

The CHAIRMAN: The question here is whether there should be a schedule of fixed charges or not. Any question of detail ought to come upon the Schedule.

Mr. HOGGE: With respect, Sir, the Clause says:
There shall be paid … the prices specified in the Schedule.
Accordingly, the Schedule is included in the Clause, and I should have thought for the convenience of the Committee, although, of course, I am in your hands, that we could discuss it now, rather than wait until the Schedule.

The CHAIRMAN: If any hon. Member wish to move an Amendment, he can do so on the Schedule. The only question now is whether the keeper of a victualling house is to be bound by a Schedule or not. The question of the exact prices fixed in the Schedule will come on later.

Mr. HOGGE: Supposing the Committee agree to the Clause, will it not ipso facto also agree to the prices specified?

The CHAIRMAN: No, because the Clause does not fix the prices. It agrees to the prices which are to be fixed in the Schedule.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Amendment of s. 44) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of s. 46A.)

In Sub-section (2) of Section forty-six A of the Army Act (which relates to the power to deal summarily with charges against officers, and shall hereafter be numbered 47) for paragraph (a) the following shall be substituted:—
(a) Forfeiture of seniority of rank either in the Army or in the corps to which the offender belongs, or in both, or, in the case of an officer whose promotion depends upon length of service, forfeiture of all or any part of his service for the purposes of promotion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I have not Sub-section (2) of Section 46A of the original Act to refer to, but I notice this Clause begins with a reference to that enactment, which deals with the scale of punishments by courts-martial. Clause 5 says that this particular Sub-section of the Army Act—and these, are the words to which I wish to draw attention—"relates to the power to deal summarily with charges against officers." I wish to know if there is to be any alteration of the previous Act dealing with charges against officers, giving anyone any greater authority to deal with them than the law previously allowed. What really is the meaning of these words? If this confers upon some body or some man power to deal in a summary manner with officers and charges against officers, and if such power did not exist before, I shall require some explanation. If it is only repeating the old form, that is a different matter.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it merely repeats the old form.

Mr. HOGGE: I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make this quite plain. If he reads the Note on this and the preceding Clause, he will find that the first sentence says:
Forfeiture of relative seniority for purposes of promotion involves at present no
real penalty on officers whose promotion depends on length of service. These Clauses remedy this anomaly.
Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell us what is the anomaly?

Sir R. SANDERS: The anomaly is, that there are certain officers to whom the penalty described in this Section of the original Act would not apply. One of the existing penalties is forfeiture of seniority, but there are certain officers whose promotion depends not on their relative seniority, but simply on their length of service. In their case loss of relative seniority would involve no real punishment, because they would remain eligible to be promoted at the end of the prescribed time, just the same. This Clause brings in these officers, and abolishes an anomaly by rendering the officers concerned liable to forfeiture of service, instead of forfeiture of relative seniority. It is a power which exists already in the case of certain officers in the Indian Army.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what sort of officers?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have a list here of the most important class of officers concerned. They include: All arms, up to lieutenant; Royal Artillery, up to captain (after 13 years' service in the regiment), Royal Army Service Corps, up to captain (after eight years' service), Royal Engineers, up to major, and so on.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of Section 76.)

The following paragraph shall be inserted at the end of Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of an enlistment):—
Provided that the Army Council in special cases may by order direct that where any boy is enlisted in a particular corps before attaining the age of eighteen, the period of twelve years shall be reckoned from the day on which he attains the age of eighteen years.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HOGGE: I wish to know precisely what this Clause means. The Note
states that its object is to enable boys under 18 to be enlisted for special technical branches of the Service in such a way that service before the age of 18 will be in the nature of apprenticeship, and that their 12 years' enlistment will only count as from the age of 18. If there is one question which is constantly coming before Members of this House it is the question of the entitlement of men to pensions for length of service. Frequently one is told of some old army man in one's constituency who is not entitled to the long service pension because he happened to join at a certain age, and until he had attained the proper age the years which he spent in the Army counted nothing for the purpose of a service pension. I take the view that where the Army agrees to the enlistment of a boy under the age of 18, either for the purposes of the Army pure and simple or for the purpose of any training connected with the Army, service for pension ought to start straight away, and ought to count. I would like to know from my hon. and gallant Friend how we stand in this matter? Supposing a boy under the age of 18 joins as a mechanician. If he stays in the Army will the years up to the time he is 18 count for service, or will we still find, as we often do now, men who have served long periods of years and who cannot draw pensions because a few years at the beginning of the service do not count at all.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. I have studied these oases for a number of years, and I imagine that, allowing two years for technical training—that is, enlisting a boy at 16, and allowing him a period of training up to 18—is a very good thing, and enables the boy to become of real service to the community by the time he reaches 18 years. I do not think, how-over, the two years should count for pension if the man leaves at the end of the first 12 years for which he was enlisted. If he remains for a further period and arrives at anywhere near the pension age before, for some reason, he leaves the Service—because he is invalided, or is no longer of any use, or is unfitted for the Service—then I really think that for the purposes of pension the two years of technical instruction should be added on to the second term. I make the suggestion that that should be done. I do not suppose for a moment that it will be
attended to at the proper time, but while I do not imagine this proposal would be of any use to the soldier who only does the first term of service, it might be of immense advantage to those completing the second term of service, enabling them to receive some assistance from the State for services rendered.

Major Sir B. FALLE: The question of counting boys' service for pensions is a very serious one, not only for the Army, but it may also affect the Navy. Men's service in both Army>and Navy counts from the age of 18. The suggestion that in the Army boys' service should count as half-time might be brought forward, but at the present moment I am very much afraid you cannot go to either the Admiralty or the War Office and ask them to take all the years of a boy's service, from the age of 12 to the age of 18, as full men's service.

7.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I understood that we are dealing with the Army. The position of the Navy is quite different. The boy is taken at 12 years of age. It is not suggested that boys should be taken, even as artificers, until the age of 16—a time at which they would be excluded from the Navy. Why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should use that quite different question of boys in the Navy—I know because I tried to join at the age of 11—to frighten the representatives of the Army Council from dealing with the boy who starts in the Army on technical instruction at the age of 16, I cannot understand. The two cases are not analagous, and this has nothing to do with the Navy.

Sir B. FALLE: We are dealing with the question of whether a youth under the age of 18 should count his service before that date.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: In the Army.

Sir B. FALLE: In the Army, and if it applies to the Army it will have to apply to the Navy.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Why should it not apply to the Navy?

Sir B. FALLE: There is no question of my intimidating anybody at all. I am rather amused at the idea that I should be intimidating my hon. and gallant
Friend (Sir R. Sanders) in any matter. It is undoubtedly a very large question. If you are going to take a boy at 16, at 14, at 12, or at any age before he is a man, it is a very big question indeed, especially when money is so tight, because it becomes a matter of taking him at a time when he is of very little use indeed to the country as he is learning his job. I do not think we should press the War Office with any such idea.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am not going in any way into a discussion of the Navy. I think the question of pension is wholly irrelevant to this Section. I cannot lay down exactly what the provision is at the present moment as to pensions in such cases, but I do not think this alters it in any way whatever. I think it has nothing to do with pensions. All this applies to is the maximum period of original enlistment. You are not allowed to have an original enlistment for more than 12 years. We want to get boys in at less than 18, and to teach them a technical Army trade in their first years of service. All that this does is to say that the period during which they are being taught before 18 shall not count as part of the 12 years which is the maximum for their original enlistment. I think the policy of taking boys young and teaching them Army trades is one that commends itself to Members generally. The proposal here is simply to amend the Act so as to provide that in the case of boys so enlisted the boys' 12 years of maximum period for original enlistment shall only begin to run from the date of their reaching the age of 18. It really has nothing to do with pensions whatever.

Mr. HOGGE: I am afraid I cannot agree for a single moment with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument. I think the House agrees that it is quite a wise policy to take boys into the Army as young as they are prepared to go, or are admitted, and presumably that age is 16. But if the boy did not go into the Army he would go into a trade, and would be learning his trade and completing his apprenticeship. It is true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman says what he wants is that the first completed period of Army service shall be 12 years, and that it shall not count until the boy has attained the age of 18, when he will have had two years' training in the trade he chose when he joined the
Army, but when the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that has nothing to do with pensions, is he right? I suppose the policy of the Army is to get the trained soldier with a trade to remain in the Army for a second period of service. Surely, a man who has been taught a trade in the Army, and has been taught for 12 years how to serve as a soldier with all our modern equipment, is a much better assets to the country than ever he was, and the Army authorities try to induce that man to rejoin for another period, the maximum period—the hon. and gallant Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—being 21 years. I do not know whether the subsequent nine years is broken up into any period of service or not, but I do know that the complete service is 21 years.
Suppose you have a boy joining the Army at 16. Suppose he serves for 12 years. During that time he has been 14 years in the Army. Presume that at the end of 12 years he takes on a second period of service at the request of the authorities and does not complete that period for some reason or other. We all know there are many reasons that arise. Illness overtakes a man, or some domestic convenience makes it impossible for him to remain in the Army, and he goes out at the end of seven years. He has done 12 years and seven years, which make 19 years, but he has also done two years prior to the time he was 18 during which he was being trained as an asset for the Army. That makes 21 years. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that if that man applied for the long service pension he would be turned down because he has not completed the 21 years' service. One of my hon. and gallant Friends suggests the long service medal, but I am not so much concerned with that as with the economic position of the man we are asking to serve at the end of this service. We ask that where you have cases where the 21 years' service pension depends on a few days or months, as is so often the case, as hon. Members know from the many individual instances they receive, the two years the boy has served prior to reaching the age of 18 shall be included to bring the term up to 21 years' service. It is not a costly request. The hon and gallant Gentleman is himself a soldier, and has had experience in the Army, and
he knows there are not multitudes of these cases, although those that do occur are very hard cases, cases of men who have served 18 and 19 years in the Army who might be able to jog along in the later years of their lives, but who are unable to do so because they have not these completed years. Could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration that point in cases of that kind and arrange that a man should be allowed to count those years?

Sir R. SANDERS: I will most certainly give that subject consideration, but I am practically certain it makes no alteration at all in his pension. I am practically certain it makes no difference to the existing law which governs the pension. This alteration of the old Clause will not affect any matter of pension at all. It is a point of law, but I am practically certain of it.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of Section 76.)

The following paragraph shall be inserted at the end of Section seventy-six of the Air Force Act (which relates to the limit of an enlistment):—
Provided that where any boy is enlisted in the regular Air Force before attaining the age of eighteen, the period of twelve years shall be reckoned from the day on which he attains the age of eighteen years.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major-General SEELY: I presume the explanation of this is the same as the previous explanation, but I think we should like to hear it from the Secretary of State. There is such a thing as a separate Air Force Act in existence, and therefore we have to amend that part of the Army (Annual) Act. The point of substance in this is, do the same arguments apply here as in the case of the Army, because the number of boys enlisted for technical training is far greater in the Air Force than in the Army, and for that reason it is very important.

Captain GUEST: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Seely) says, this is even more important to the Air Force than to the Army, as two-thirds of our recruitment is from lads we train for two or three years, as the case may be, to be mechanics. The substance of the Amend-
ment is exactly the same in its relation to the length of service and the question of pension, and consequently the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State for War so completely covers the argument that it would be wasting the time of the House for me to put it forward.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I was hoping that, as we have two Ministers dealing with the one subject, we might get them to differ on this point. The point put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) was so plain. It is not a great number that is concerned compared with the number employed, but there are, I suppose, hundreds of cases where men have lost their pension under the present Pensions Act by only a few days; many cases of a month, some of a year, of a year and a few days; but they are all exceptionally hard cases, and it seems to me that if you put deliberately into this Clause that the period of 12 years shall be reckoned from the date on which he attains the age of 18 years, excluding the two years being counted as part of his military service on enlistment, there must be at the end of that man's journey, if for some reason or other over which he he has no control he cannot complete his actual 21 years from the age of 18, serious hardship. As, however, neither of the hon. Gentlemen can give us any decision relating to the matter, I would ask them favourably to consider it, say, next year, or at any time, so long as it is understood that the thing should not be lost sight of. It will not be an injury until the next generation comes along, but they will think that those who were protecting the interests of soldiers in this House must have been neglectful of their duty if attention is not drawn to it now.

Mr. HOGGE: I should like to say that I am not at all impressed with the argument which says that in law it makes no difference. It is not a question of law. A man is entitled to this pension if he has fulfilled the conditions. You are imposing conditions which may make it impossible for him to fulfil those conditions, and yet he has been both in the Army and the Air Service. I must confine myself now to the Air Service. We are now in Committee, and this must come up again on Report, when both those Clauses ought to be amended by the
addition at the end, after the words "18 years," of words to this effect:
But in the event of a claim for long service pension being deficient in so much Army service, any service before the age of 18 to make up that service shall count for pension purposes.

Lieut.-Cotonel WARD: That is the point.

Mr. HOGGE: If the hon. and gallant Gentlemen will look at it they will see that if they grant it they are not giving much away. It is not going to cost the State much, but it is going to make a great difference to the veterans. There are none yet in the Air Service, but, as has been said, the Air Service may, and probably will, be the great Service of the future. We must see that any bad conditions that obtain in the Army do not grow up in the Air Force.

Sir C. YATE: Surely half the boy's service might at any rate be allowed to count. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill will bring it in on Report that, if not the whole, at any rate half, the boy's service should be allowed to count for pension.

Sir R. SANDERS: I have said the point will be considered. It is possible, however, that there may not be a Report stage, but it does not make any difference this year. I am myself convinced that this Clause docs not affect anyone's right to pension in any way.

Mr. T. THOMSON: What the Committee wants to know is whether, as the law stands at present, the service prior to 18 years old does now count, and, if not, that it should be allowed to count.

Sir R. SANDERS: That is a different point altogether. I am simply saying that this Clause makes no alteration in the existing law as regards pension, to the best of my knowledge and belief. I did not give any undertaking whatever that I will alter these things.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 8 (Amendment of s. 87), 9 (Amendment of s. 190), and 10 (Application to Air Force), agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 180 (2).)

Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and eighty of the Army Act (which relates to modifications of Act with respect to His Majesty's Indian forces) shall be amended as follows:—
After the words "inquired into," in paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the words "by an independent tribunal."—[Sir C. Fate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir C. YATE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Sub-section (2, d) of Section 180 of the Army Act is as follows:
An officer belonging to His Majesty's Indian forces who thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer, and on due application made to him does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, may complain to the Governor-General of India, who shall cause his complaint to be inquired into, and if so desired by the officer, make a report through a Secretary of State to His Majesty in order to receive the directions of His Majesty thereon.
The Amendment which I propose is to insert the words "by an independent tribunal" after the words "inquired into" in that Sub-section. Many officers in the Army feel very much aggrieved, and when they bring their case forward very often they have to appeal to the very officer who, they think, has treated them badly. That report of an officer goes up to headquarters, and if there is an appeal to the Governor-General, surely it is only right that the complaint should be inquired into by some independent tribunal and not through the very officer against whom the officer in question is complaining. We all of us know of the very many cases that have happened and are brought to our notice from time to time, and it is one of the saddest things when a man in the Army fails to get any redress. He is soured for life. He is a disappointed and discontented man for the rest of his life simply from the fact that he has not had a proper tribunal before which he could state his case. I do not want to enlarge upon this subject, because I have spoken on it on previous occasions, but there is one case I have brought forward which struck me as a very curious one. It is the case of an officer who was relieved of the command of his regiment. We have all heard of such cases, and we have all heard of many men being relieved
of the command of their regiment by the Brigadier-General or General over them and that identical General being relieved of his command a few days afterwards, because he was considered to be incompetent. Yet there was never any redress for the first unfortunate man. I remember quoting a case last year of an officer during the War who was relieved of his command. Fortunately for himself, he came under the command of another General, and he was again appointed to the command of a battalion. He went through the War, won the D.S.O., and I do not know how many honours came to him, but afterwards, when the War was over, he went to Ireland and was there assassinated. The mother wrote to me that she could not possibly have believed that any man could have suffered in the terrible way in which her son had suffered if it had not been that she had had the reading of his diary afterwards. That sort of thing brings it home to us how men suffer when they are compelled to be silent and to submit to injustice, and for that reason I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War, who is in charge of this Bill, to accept this new Clause. I hope these cases will be able to be submitted to a perfectly independent tribunal.

Lieut-Colonel WARD: What kind of tribunal?

Sir C. YATE: An independent tribunal. I leave the tribunal to the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, and I do not limit the tribunal in any way. All I say is that an officer's case should not be judged merely on the report of the general officer, or whoever it is, against whom he is aggrieved.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I desire to support the Amendment, and I only wish it applied to a wider orbit than India and covered all Army officers in every part of the world. The law, as it stands at present, provides that an officer in these circumstances should have a right to have an inquiry made before a tribunal, and surely, if there is this legal right, it ought to follow as a matter of justice that the tribunal should be the most perfect that human ingenuity can devise; that it should be judicially minded and absolutely detached from all predisposition or prejudice in favour either of the superior authority or of the officer complaining. At the present time that is not
the case. The present machinery is not perfect. It is only human nature that one military authority will stand a little in awe of another and superior military authority. There is always the liability, which those of us who served in the War know perfectly well, of a military tribunal being overawed by the superior authority of some General at a distance who might have an interest in the case. The result of that is undoubtedly that many men's careers have been wrecked, without their having had a fair trial. It did not matter to those of us who were amateur soldiers during the War, because we were simply in temporarily, and it was not a career for us that was at stake, but when a man embarks upon a soldier's career, whether in India or elsewhere, it is the hardest thing in the world that that career should be absolutely terminated without his having had a perfectly fair trial by a tribunal detached from all predisposition and predilection. That is the ideal scheme. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) asked the Mover of this Amendment what tribunal he would suggest. All that the Amendment says is "an independent tribunal," and that means a tribunal which is independent of the military authorities who are concerned in the particular case. It is very easy to imagine tribunals of that character composed partly of military officers who know nothing about the matter at issue, and partly of a lay element, lawyers for preference, who would have some knowledge of the rules of evidence. A tribunal of that sort would be absolutely independent and would avoid the suspicion and the allegation which are so commonly made that a man's career has been blasted, because he has not had a fair trial.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I am not quite so sure whether I can follow the two gallant Colonels in reference to this independent tribunal. I dare say it would work all right in peace time, but is it intended also that there shall be independent individuals travelling about from the headquarters of an Army, or that in the case of a campaign there should be these people to be called upon immediately to decide any grievance that an officer might have about his commanding officer, whether a commanding officer of a
battalion or a Brigadier, or whoever it might be? I am doubtful as to whether there should not be some limit in regard to the independent tribunal. The Army is after all the best thing to maintain its own discipline, and I am not so certain about the independent tribunal. If, for instance, it was composed of officers out of another command I could understand it. I think that would be the best way, if there was any intention of adopting this Amendment. I have only to mention my own case, where, without any charge of military incapacity or anything of that kind, but only on the ground of the social class to which I belonged, it had to go at last to the Cabinet. If it had not been that I held a position in the public life of the country and that those above me could not break me, and that there was in that case the Cabinet at last to appeal to, I should never have had any military career in the Army, not even during the War, badly as men were wanted. There was actually a Cabinet Minute that kept me in the Army, or else the old-fashioned officers would have had me out and never given me the ghost of a chance, not for any reason whatever of the position of my command or my competency, but solely on the ground of the social class from which I came.
Therefore I assume that if there were such antagonism in the case of men who were trained in the Army, who went through Camberley, or Woolwich, or any of the other military training colleges, no doubt they would be accepted in the profession and treated with the respect due to their position and ability, but I can quite understand the Territorial officer and the others, who look upon this thing from an entirely different point of view from the ordinary professional soldier. I hope there is no harm done by my reference to myself, but I remember that my own career depended absolutely upon an independent tribunal once. At the same time, after another five or six years, in the Army—and under peculiar circumstances—I must say that if in every solitary case the one above, the superior officer, could not sometimes deal with an officer summarily and at once, it would be a hopeless position for the commanding officer. It would be a hopeless position, I am certain, for the effective purpose for which the Army might be operating at the time, unless there be contained in the Army Command itself, power to deal [...]
a recalcitrant, or an undisciplined, or an incompetent officer. I take my own case as being exceptional, knowing that that could not occur, naturally, in the Regular Army, and in ordinary peace times, but could only occur when, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, the necessity of the State demanded the services of amateur soldiers. Therefore, I do not put it forward as a case that could possibly occur under normal conditions in the Army, and I am extremely doubtful, having been in the Service, and liking the Service, and admiring the way in which it performs its duty to the State, and the wonderful service that it renders to the community, which has a remarkable aptitude for immediately forgetting that service afterwards—remembering all that, I say I should be extremely doubtful as to whether you must not continue, as it were, to depend upon the Army itself for its own discipline, both for officers and men.

Sir R. SANDERS: I need not dwell long on this proposed new Clause, because it has been introduced so often before, and I think really the strongest thing against it is that it has never found favour with more than a very small number of Members of the House. Under any circumstances, I do not think we could put in an Act of Parliament the words "independent tribunal," and leave it at that. After all, the appeal in the cases to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) referred, is to the Viceroy of India, and corresponds to the appeal to the Army Council and the King in the case of an English officer. The Viceroy, I presume, in considering that appeal, has power to consult anyone he likes. I have not understood quite whether my hon. and gallant Friend means that the appeal should be to a military Court or to a civil Court, or to a mixed Court. In any case, it is not clear to me, although I bow to his superior knowledge of the Indian Army, that the Viceroy at the present moment has not power to set up an independent tribunal if he thinks it necessary. But, in the first place, we could not put these words into an Act of Parliament; and, in the second place, I very much doubt whether any tribunal you could set up would give more satisfaction to the officers of the Army than
the present system does. There must always be, I suppose, a certain number of hard cases. There must be a certain number of men who consider themselves aggrieved, but I do not think that, taking it as a whole, it can be said that it is too easy to get rid of incompetent officers.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, Section 145 (3).)

In Section one hundred and forty-five, Subsection (3), of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain wife and children), at end of Sub-section, there shall be inserted the words "unless such soldier has in fact attended, or had sufficient opportunity to attend, the summons under which the process has been served at a date prior to the issue of such orders."—[Lieut.-Colonel Hurst.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I very much regret that this new Clause is not on the Paper to-day. It has been on the Paper for the last two days, but, by a misunderstanding, it has been struck out of the Paper to-day. Section 145 of the Army Act now provides that no process whatever shall be valid against a soldier of the Regular forces if served after such soldier is under orders for service beyond the seas. That has given rise to hardships to women, particularly the mothers of illegitimate children by soldiers, in consequence of the soldier being under orders for service overseas. There have been a few cases where a soldier has actually appeared in Court and fought the case, and had an order made against him for 5s. or so a week. He has gone back to his regiment, and then received orders for overseas, and the attempt to force an order made upon him is all nugatory, owing to Section 145. With a view to rectifying that injustice, and without in any way disturbing the real substratum of Section 145 (3), as it now stands, I move this new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: I beg to support the Clause. Although it is a very small point, it is a very important point to those concerned, and I do not think this would make any serious difference to the whole Clause as it stands. I hope, therefore, the Government will accept it.

Captain BOWYER: I should like to say a word about this, because it has been till now the custom of the law of the country always to neglect the interests of the illegitimate child and the unmarried mother. Here is another case in a long line of cases, which has extended over about 350 years, and if Parliament is now, for the first time, going to deal with the question of illegitimacy, then a very good change in the law is going to be made. I hold in my hand now a definite case which has arisen within the last few weeks, and perhaps I might, without mentioning names, read out the message which was sent to the unfortunate mother who applied for an affiliation order. In this case the actual summons had been served, and the soldier was given leave by his commanding officer to attend the Court, and the order was made. She got this reply:
The attached Court Order against the above-named soldier in favour of (here was inserted the mother's name) is returned, as the man was under orders for service overseas when the Summons was served on him. Compulsory allotment is, therefore, not recoverable from the soldier.
No case, I submit, could be stronger than that, because here the soldier was actually given leave by his commanding officer, and the only explanation that might arise is this. If there were a time of emergency, when no leave could be given to the soldier to attend the Court, then, I believe, the question would not arise; but if the soldier does attend the Court, and the order is made against him, I do submit that compulsory allotment should be recoverable.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I think it is only a just proposition that has been made, if it be limited to the cases suggested, but I did not understand, when listening to the Amendment, that there was any limitation as to the process, so that any summons for any trivial thing might prevent a man going on service. Subject to proper safeguards in regard to that, I would lend my assistance to the appeal that has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend. A soldier himself, however, might commit some trivial offence for the purpose of evading foreign service. Subject to a provision of that description, it is a very good proposition.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite in sympathy with the proposal, which is not
made for the first time. The War Office has been looking very carefully into the matter, and I had hoped that it would have been possible to have included in this year's Army Annual Bill an alteration of the Army Act which would have met the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend. However, we have had to consult other Departments as well, and drafting a Clause of that sort is not quite so simple as might be imagined. I am afraid that all I can say is that we very much hope—in fact, I should be exceedingly disappointed if we were not able, next year, to insert a Clause, which, although not in exactly the same words, would carry out the meaning, and, I think, perhaps, carry it out as fully, if not more fully, than my hon. and gallant Friend's Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: Having regard to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 44 (5).)

In Sub-section (5) of Section 44 of the Army Act (which relates to scale of punishments by courts-martial) the words "personal restraint or of" in line 7 of such Subsection shall be omitted.—[Mr. Hayward.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HAYWARD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I must apologise to the Committee for not having placed this Clause on the Paper. It deals with a matter with which the Committee is thoroughly familiar, having been raised by myself on several occasions. If this Clause were accepted, it would impose a further limitation upon the Secretary of State in framing rules for administering field punishment. The Section dealing with this matter has already imposed some restrictions, and it might be helpful to the Committee if I read the Sub-section.
Where a soldier on active service is guilty of any offence, it shall be lawful for a court-martial to award for that offence such field punishment, other than flogging"—
So that there is that restriction already imposed—
as may be directed by rules to be made from time to time by a Secretary of State,
and such field punishment shall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour, but shall not be of a nature to cause injury to life or limb.
Those last words impose a further restriction, and what I wish to do by my Clause is still further to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State by saying that field punishment shall not consist of personal restraint. It is by virtue of these innocent-looking words "personal restraint" that the offensive part of field punishment No. 1 is at present carried out.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: Does the hon. Member consider that putting a man in prison is personal restraint?

Mr. HAYWARD: I should consider myself under personal restraint if I were in prison. Field punishment No. 1, as everybody knows, is the tying up of the subject to a gun wheel, under rules made by the Secretary of State, but which have to be submitted to Parliament. It is Parliament that is responsible. We were told on several occasions during the War that the question of abolition or revision could not be reconsidered then, but that after the War probably the time would arrive when it might be considered and some modification made.
I do not want to weary the Committee by going at any length into the very grave objections to this method of punishment. Members of the Committee are familiar with them. If it were only used on rare occasions and for very serious offences, the same objection would not apply. We in this House know that it is not so. I do not for a moment suggest, in fact I have stated the reverse, that it is used by the Commanding Officer, by the general run of Commanding Officers, except on rare occasions and for very grave offences. I quite admit that, and fully; but it is well known to the Committee that other commanding officers have given this very serious and offensive punishment for very trivial offences. We had these cases up in this House again and again during the War. One of the objectionable features of the punishment is that it can be given by a commanding officer, as well as a court martial, for any offence whatever. That, I think, is one of the deficiencies of the Army Act as it stands, that although there is a scale of punishments, yet there is no scale of offences for which the punishment can
be given. Consequently you have an Army, situated such as our Army was in the late War, where you got the greatest inequalities in the administration of justice throughout the Army.
It is said that this form of punishment is necessary to maintain discipline. I do not speak with any very great experience in this matter, but from such experience as I had, I should say the truth lay in quite the reverse direction. Field punishment No. 1 is, I should say, destructive of discipline, and is particularly destructive of, what is of equal importance, moral. I know perfectly well that when soldiers in France and elsewhere have seen their comrades undergoing infliction of this punishment, it has instilled a more rebellious spirit than anything else could have done. I know this of my own knowledge. Again, we are told that if this form of punishment is not inflicted, then the death sentences would probably be increased. I very much doubt that. I have sat on courts-martial, and I cannot conceive of a case where the infliction of field punishment No. 1 might be taken as a substitute for the death penalty. It is impossible for me to conceive of an officer, or a court-martial, taking such a view of a case as that. The time has come, I think, when Parliament might well review this matter, and once and for all abolish this very objectionable from of punishment, which is not directed to physical pain but is directed mainly to the degradation and humiliation of the man and the breaking of his spirit.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I shall support the Clause moved by my hon. Friend. Although I imagine in the official army mind the small experience of a mere amateur will not count for more. I do, however, submit to the House that the slight experience one had overseas and the attitude of the men towards this kind of punishment ought to be some guide to the House in its deliberations upon this matter. I can testify from the very small personal experience of one who served only in the ranks that the feeling of the men towards the infliction of this particular form of Field Punishment No. 1 was the very reverse of that which was intended. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has referred to the feeling of degradation and humiliation engendered by what was commonly called in the ranks
"crucifixion." It led to no good results so far as the moral of the soldiers was concerned. It differed in its administration, and its infliction varied tremendously with the personality of the commanding officer and of those who had to carry out its administration. I submit that no good purpose was served from the general point of view of military discipline, but rather that the reverse was the fact. Now, that you have an Army in which, if I may be excused for saying so, you have a higher type of men, and are trying to keep a higher type, these rare relics of barbarism are not applicable. You have in your hands plenty of methods of discipline and of severe punishment without falling back on these relics of the past. I submit you will get a better spirit in the Army than if you insist upon this form of Field Punishment No. 1.

Sir R.SANDERS: I only received notice a short while ago that this question was likely to be brought up. It was brought up last year, if I remember, by the hon. Member, and I think he then used very much the same arguments as now. I am afraid I shall have to reply now in much the same fashion as I did then, and I cannot add very much to the arguments I then put forward. The hon. Member said that a Committee ought to be appointed to enquire into this matter. That has been done. A Committee fully considered the matter, and decided that field punishment No. 1 ought to be kept. The opinion of such men as Sir Douglas Haig and Sir William Robertson was taken, and they were in favour of the retention of the existing system. The Revision Committee said:
The Committee consider that the question of the retention or abolition of field punishment No. 1 is one depending mainly on whether any other punishment can be devised to take its place which is suitable and effective on active service. The views of officers commanding in various theatres of war were obtained by the Army Council. These strongly support the necessity of retaining field punishment No. 1, and this view is endorsed by the service members of the Committee. No suitable alternative punishment which has the support of military and Air Force opinion has been suggested to the Committee. In these circumstances they do not feel that they are in a position to recommend the abolition of field punishment No. 1."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1921; col. 886, Vol. 140.]
I quoted that last year, and also the opinion of General Macready, reference
to whom has been made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause. General Macready said:
The abolition of field punishment No. 1 would have disastrous and far-reaching consequence, and as a result calls for the death penalty would become more frequent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1921; col. 886 Vol. 140.]
After all, no one dislikes this punishment more than I do, but we have got to have some punishment that is thoroughly disagreeable, and deserves all the nasty things that can be said about field punishment No. 1. It is all very well for us sitting here to talk about the relics of a barbarous system, but I do not think that we have the right—well, we have that—but I do not think it would be wise and statesmanlike for us to try and impose our opinion in this matter, and make that the rule for the men who have the real responsibility of maintaining discipline in the field, sometimes under very, very difficult circumstances.

Mr. HOGGE: I trust my hon. Friend will divide the Committee, after an answer of that kind from the Under-Secretary for War. He has not met the points at all. My hon. Friend made one point which has always been made, that if you are going to have such a punishment as this for a certain list of offences, the latter should be framed in such a way that the punishment will fit the crime. For the hon. and gallant Gentleman to get up and excuse himself on the ground that we cannot do away with these relics of a barbarous system is to argue that you might as well re-impose the tortures of the Inquisition for purposes of punishment—if we were sufficiently inhuman to do it! During the War we had case after case brought forward in this House, and I do not remember anything which moved the House more than the description of some of the crimes for which this punishment was given. To say that it would increase the death sentence is, in my opinion, a very inadequate argument. As a matter of fact, there were far too many death sentences in the War; they were far too frequent, and there was far too little investigation. Cases were discovered where inquiry showed that men had been shot needlessly and without adequate inquiry. It is an inhuman system. Seven million men went into the War. Five million went voluntarily, and, therefore, it was the more
cruel to inflict Field Punishment No. 1, or crucifixion, on the type of men who volunteered for the Army. If what my hon. and gallant Friend has quoted is the opinion of Field Marshal Haig and General Macready of what they regard as necessary for the discipline of an Army, I think it is only fair to say that it alters one's views with regard to the authority of these men. These are great soldiers, geniuses in leading men. We have heaped upon them honours as a result of their genius for leadership, for leading men successfully, without having at the back of their authority such barbarous and inhuman punishment as Field Punishment No. 1. If they need it, I say, no thanks to their genius! Now that we are passed through the War, it seems to me it is just the time, the fitting time, to do what we are asked to do in the way of amendment of the Army (Annual) Bill.

8.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: My hon. Friend, in the course of his speech, said nothing about hard labour. That was to be allowed to stay in, but the matter of personal restraint was to be left out. I leave it to his imagination to explain how a man is to be given hard labour without personal restraint. He said that the Army Act was so arranged that there were no punishments laid down there to suit definite crimes. That is not true. The ordinary Army Act does definitely lay down certain maximum punishments for definite crimes, and so do the King's Regulations. The point is that these Regulations are made for

peace time. You cannot lay down definite Regulations, on active service, that any particular crime should have a particular form of punishment, because it might be impossible to carry out that punishment. Remarks of the kind to which we have been listening come from people who do not realise the conditions under which men work in the Army, and the conditions they propose would tie the hands of commanding officers, and might make it impossible for them, in some cases, to maintain discipline. As far as I can remember, and I am speaking from memory, there is a considerable difference between Field Punishment No. 1 and Field Punishment No. 2. Field Punishment No. 1 involves forfeiture of pay, and Field Punishment No. 2 does not. To imply, as many Members do, that because a man gets Field Punishment No. 1 he is tied to a cart wheel is absolute nonsense. I have seen No. 1 punishment frequently, but I never saw a man tied to a cart wheel. I never remember a single case in my own regiment where Field Punishment No. 1 fell to be given in that way, and when it was given by commanding officers it was given because it entailed forfeiture of pay. If you abolish Field Punishment No. 1 you will deprive commanding officers of the only means of giving punishment, except in the mild form of confinement to barracks, without any forfeiture of pay.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 155.

Division No. 77.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Banton, George
Hinds, John
Rendall, Atheistan


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hogge, James Myles
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cairns, John
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Robertson, John


Cape, Thomas
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spencer, George A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, John Edward


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Waring, Major Walter


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Stourbridge)


Grundy, T. W.
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hallas, Eldred
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Halls, Walter
Poison, Sir Thomas A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hancock, John George
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Mr. Hayward and Mr. Foot.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Reid, D. D.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gregory, Holman
Remer, J. R.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Renwick, Sir George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hallwood, Augustine
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Betterton, Henry B.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Rodger, A. K.


Bigland, Alfred
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Seddon, J. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Howard, Major S. G.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Brittain, Sir Harry
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jameson, John Gordon
Stanton, Charles Butt


Bruton, Sir James
Jesson, C.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sugden, W. H.


Carr, W. Theodore
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Sutherland, Sir William


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Kidd, James
Taylor, J.


Casey, T. W.
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Clough, Sir Robert
Lloyd, George Butler
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Coats, Sir Stuart
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lorden, John William
Waddington, R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mason, Robert
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Dawson, Sir Philip
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Morden, Col. W. Grant
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Nail, Major Joseph
Windsor, Viscount


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Neal, Arthur
Winterton, Earl


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Wise, Frederick


Evans, Ernest
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Woolcock, William James U.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Parker, James
Worsfold, T. Cato


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestler-Walker, L.
Pearce, Sir William
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Forrest, Walter
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Perkins, Walter Frank



Ganzoni, Sir John
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardiner, James
Pratt, John William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Rae, H. Norman



Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Raeburn, Sir William H.



Question put, and agreed to.

SCHEDULE.


Accommodation to be provided.
Maximum Price.


Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished
Tenpence per night for the first soldier and eightpence per night for each additional soldier.


Breakfast as specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Army and Air Force Acts.
Sevenpence each.


Dinner as so specified
Eightpence.


Supper as so specified
Threepence.


Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat.
Tenpence per night for the first soldier and eightpence per night for each additional soldier.


Stable room and ten pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw per day for each horse.
One shilling and ninepence per day.


Stable room without forage
Sixpence per day.


Lodging and attendance for officer
Three shillings per night.

Note.—An officer shall pay for his food.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HOGGE: I want in one sentence to draw attention to a point I wish to raise. It is one which I made before.
If the Committee will look at what is provided for breakfast and dinner, they will find that the sums there are 7d., 8d., and 3d., which makes 1s. 6d., which is a little less than any dish we can get in the dining room at the House of Commons. I venture to suggest that this amount allowed for the sustenance of these men is not enough.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, 1882 to 1919.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport, under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Amble, in the county of Northumberland, which was presented on the 27th day of February, 1922 (H.C. 25), be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport, under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Distington, in the rural district of Whitehaven, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 27th day of February, 1922 (H.C. 25–1.), be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport, under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Ammanford, in the county of Carmarthen, which was presented on the 13th day of March, 1922 (H.C. 43), be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport, under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the borough of Wareham, and parts of the parishes of Arne and Wareham St. Martin, in the rural district of Wareham and Purbeck, in the county of Dorset, which was presented on the 13th day of March, 1922 (H.C. 43–1.), be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport, under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect
of the urban districts of Great Harwood and Rishton and the parishes of Wilpshire, Clayton-le-dale, and Ramsgreave, in the rural district of Blackburn, all in the county of Lancaster, which was presented on the 14th day of March, 1922 (H.C. 46), be approved."—[Mr. Neal.]

COALITION GOVERNMENT.

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the lack of definite and coherent principle in the policy of the present Coalition Government can only be remedied by the establishment of a Ministry composed of men united in political principle.
This is a proposal in favour of a definite principle of political government in this country, and I desire to clear away at the outset one or two misconceptions. The first one is that this Motion is either a personal attack upon the Prime Minister or upon any Member of the Government. I do not in the least intend to attack the principles of the Prime Minister, although I may object that those principles are not such as I would desire to see carried out. I am second to no one in my appreciation of the work which the Prime Minister did during the War and the efforts which he made in 1918, which were crowned with success. What I want to know is whether in principle the Coalition is Liberal or Conservative. If it be Liberal, those who are Liberals will support it, while those who really believe that the principles of Conservatism are necessary for the well-being of the Government will have no difficulty in supporting that view. The son of the Prime Minister (Major Lloyd George) made a speech on Saturday last—there can be no greater authority on the politics of the Prime Minister than his own son—in which he said:
His father was applying Liberal principles to his policy, and he was as good a Liberal now as when he first sat in Parliament.
I do not quarrel with that statement. The view I take as a Conservative is that Liberal principles should not be the policy of a Government of which I am a supporter. The Colonial Secretary laid down in January last what a Liberal is. He said:
A Liberal is a man who does his utmost to bring Liberal principles to bear upon the policy of his country at home and abroad.
That is perfectly justifiable. If I were a Liberal I should do my beet to bring the
policy of the Government in accordance with Liberal principles and Liberal politics. The whole reason for my making this speech is because I believe the right hon. Gentleman is a perfectly honest Liberal, and he is carrying out the policy which his son and the Colonial Secretary enunciated as the duty of a Liberal Minister. Many of us are not Liberals, and we believe firmly in the old principles and policy of the Conservative party as being more beneficial to the welfare of the State than Liberal principles. If I may go back to Disraeli, in 1867 he laid down that your policy should be founded upon principle. The whole of Disraeli's attitude and career was that policies should be founded on definite principles. There are other Liberal Ministers on the Front Treasury Bench. A few months ago there was a symposium of the Liberal party in the Coalition at the Central Hall, Westminster, to nail their flag to the mast in order to let it be known that the principles of Liberalism must prevail in the Coalition Government. The Home Secretary and the late Attorney-General laid down that they were all full of Liberalism and were full-blooded Free Traders. I see the Leader of the House is present. All his life he has been a devoted adherent of Tariff Reform, and yet at the meeting I have referred to there were Liberal Ministers in favour of a full-blooded resolution in favour of Free Trade. The then Attorney-General, the present Lord Hewart, said
Their policy at this moment was peace, retrenchment and reform. When he spoke of reform, he need not say that he was not speaking of the reform of the House of Lords.
He said that was part of the policy of the Conservative section of the Coalition, but the Liberal section had nothing to do with it. With regard to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, if the Coalition means anything and is really united, I think they might at least have been united in regard to that Bill for which they were all individually and collectively responsible, and yet this is what the Attorney-General, then a Member of the Cabinet, said in regard to that Bill:
They stood unrepentantly and uncompromisingly for a policy of Free Trade. This was not a time, if ever there were a time, to hamper trade. We wanted all the trade we could get. It might be said, 'Was there not a Measure called the Safeguarding of Industries Act?' He thought there was a
little thing of that sort. He did not regard it as one of the conspicuously bright examples of the Government's legislation.
Later on he referred to it as
that unfortunate step.
That is the speech of a prominent Member of the Cabinet. I am not complaining of him for attempting to infuse his Liberal principles, but I am claiming my right to infuse the Conservatives of the country with Conservative principles just as much as the Liberal Coalitionists did at their meeting, because there they claimed that the Liberal section of the Coalition should have their full share in the legislation of this Government, and they declared that they intended to keep their policy and their powder dry for the time when the Coalition comes to an end. They did not say "if the Coalition comes to an end," but "when the Coalition comes to an end, we want the Liberal party to be prepared to take charge of the Liberal feeling and opinion throughout this country." I am only asking that we should have the same right and be entitled, as Conservatives, to see that our principles and our policy are fully represented in the Government of the day, and in order that when the Coalition comes to an end there may be a Conservative party and a Conservative policy fully prepared to take over the reins of office.
As to my own leaders I desire to say nothing that will embitter the relations between them and those who are their friends. One thing only perhaps I may say and that is in regard to the late episode in Ireland. I am not going to deal to-night with that question in detail. All I want to say is it might have been necessary for the Government to enter into negotiations with those whom they had described in very different language a few weeks or a few months before, but at least they should have taken their party into consultation before they asked them to follow them, not having the same knowledge and information as they had as to the necessity for the action it had been decided to take. Before committing the party to the course they did take in Ireland, they ought certainly to have consulted them.
The whole of their policy has shifted from time to time not only with regard to Ireland, but in respect of other matters. Take, for instance, agriculture: We have had a Bill brought in one day and repealed almost the next. Take the
question of the admission of store cattle into this country. For weeks and for months they have let a Member of the Cabinet, the Minister of Agriculture, go up and down the country promising agriculturists that there shall be a certain policy with regard to the importation of store cattle. Now we find the Government coming forward and saying that they are going to leave the matter to the unprejudiced decision of the House. That may be a perfectly justifiable policy, but it is hardly fair to the Minister of Agriculture, and it is hardly fair to agriculturists themselves to allow a Cabinet Minister to go up and down the country proclaiming one Cabinet policy and then for the Cabinet to adopt another policy. An hon. Member asked just now whether I had learned anything from the War. I venture to hope we have all learned a great deal. We learned during the War that we might coalesce on questions of principle. During the War there were no parties in the House, there was a Coalition Government because it was based on the principle that right must conquer might. While that principle was at stake there was no difference whatever, but it is now inevitable, the War having been over for three years, that when men hold certain principles rightly or wrongly, and hold them just as dearly as other hon. Members in this House hold their principles, it is only inevitable that those principles should reassert themselves and claim in men's minds a dominant share in their political thought and view. Disraeli 50 He wart, said:
A Coalition has before this been successful, but I have always found their triumph has been brief. This, too, I know, that England has not loved Coalitions.
But a greater even than Disraeli may be prayed in aid by myself to-night. It is one who is still living. He said, not in a speech, but in a written newspaper article, in 1920, when speaking of a Coalition
As a fighting force in the constituencies it is to-day as I have already said what every Coalition m English history has always been; it is invertebrate, it is ineffective in attack, it is unconvincing for the purposes of defence; it lets every case go by default.… It constitutes a great menace to the State.
These are the words of the present Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, one of the most prominent and important Mem-
bers of the Government to-day. It is true the basis of his argument was in favour of the formation of a Central party, but while the Central party has not been formed, the views of the Lord Chancellor, if they were held honestly, must remain the same to-day. I am certain that the Noble Lord meant what he said then, and I claim that that represents the considered view of an important and prominent Member of the Coalition Government. I want the adoption of that principle not merely for home legislation but I want its application to our great Empire. It is not merely a small undertaking which we are managing in this House through the instrumentality of those who are His Majesty's servants as Members of the Cabinet, but we are administering the greatest Empire the world has even seen—we are administering not merely Ireland but Egypt and India and many other parts of the world, all of which would like to know that they can depend on a policy of the Government which will be based on definite principles, which they can understand and act up to. Can anyone say that during the last three or four years the policy of the Government in India has been on definite principles? Has its policy in Egypt been on definite principles? I will say this, without fear of contradiction, that the policy pursued by the late Secretary for India was not one which would have commended itself to any Conservative Secretary of State in the world. My speech must necessarily be short and I cannot go into details, but I do want to call attention to a remark in a Cabinet despatch in regard to Egypt on the 5th December, 1921, when Lord Allenby presented a despatch on behalf of the Government to the Sultan of Egypt. This despatch, as is well known, was the production of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was a long despatch. I cannot read it all, but I want to read to the House one particular sentence:
The world is suffering in many places at the present time from the cult of a fanatical and purely disruptive type of nationalism. If the Government will set their face against it as firmly in Egypt as elsewhere those who yield to it only make more necessary and so prolong the maintenance of these foreign sanctions which they denounce.
At the very moment that that dispatch was being sent out to Egypt the same
Cabinet was negotiating with a disruptive nationalism in Ireland. I suggest to this House that while one section of the Cabinet was opposing firmly a disruptive nationalism in Egypt, another section was dealing in a contrary direction with a disruptive nationalism in Ireland. One or other only could have been right. The main argument I shall use in conclusion is in regard to the effect the Coalition has had in the country upon State policy. Two speeches have been made quite recently, one by the Lord Chancellor and one by the Colonial Secretary, both containing attacks of a very violent character on the Labour party and Labour leaders. I refer to this not because I want the votes of the Labour party—perhaps my right hon. Friends opposite may not cheer quite so loudly when they hear what I have to say. The real object the Conservative party and, I think, all right-thinking politicians should have is that the division between parties should be perpendicular and not horizontal. The action of those two Cabinet Ministers and the action of the Coalition is driving the fighting politician into working, not with those with whom for years he has worked, be they Liberals or Conservatives, but he is being driven to the place where alone he can get fighting politics to-day, and that is the ranks of the Labour party. No, I am not going to join that party. I am trying to arouse Conservative enthusiasm, because I believe, perfectly honestly and sincerely, that the moment the Conservative party is revived, whenever that may be, there will be a strong accession to our ranks of those men who believe in their hearts in Conservative principles. It is the action of the Coalition which is putting a damper on all propaganda on the part of Liberals and Conservatives throughout the country, and it has thrown those men into the ranks of the Labour party. Let me go back again to my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor on this matter. He puts it quite clearly:
Does anyone think that adequate efforts are being made in constituencies to-day to defend the causes in which we believe? If he does, he lives in the clouds, and has no knowledge of the world in which, even at this moment, convictions, which will be pregnant with consequences, are being formed. At the very moment when I write, young, plastic, and impressionable minds are drinking in false messages, because these are the only ones they hear.
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Lord Chancellor. He sees the difficulty. His remedy is different from mine, I agree. His remedy is the formation of a Centre party; my remedy is the revival of the Conservative party. But we both proceed on the same assumption, that the young men of England are being driven into the Labour and Socialist parties because there has been no propaganda by the Conservative and Liberal parties. If it is true that this division is being made horizontally rather than perpendicularly, you will have, on the one side, those who have, and on the other those who have not; and there lies the way to revolution. If you perpetuate the Coalition, composed of those who have, and set it in array against the Labour, Socialist or Communist parties, or whatever you like to call them, consisting of those who have not, the inevitable result must sooner or later be a revolution, or an attempt at revolution It is really because of the great anxiety that I have lest that should be the real fight between us in the coming years, that I want to see the old Conservative party with its own principles and its own ideas revived.
I will only make one more short quotation in regard to the Prime Minister, from one of his own special organs in the Press—the "Observer" of last Sunday:
There is no hope for the Coalition on Conservative lines,"—
says the "Observer."
There is none for Mr. Lloyd George in connection with it on such lines.
And then there is an appeal to him to come out and lead the Liberal party. With that I have nothing to do, but I am perfectly convinced that there is no hope for any Coalition unless they are united on principle. There was hope during the War, because the principle that I mentioned earlier dominated the whole of the other factors. To-day, however, there are arising throughout the country new ideas, new policies; but they are all being looked at in the light of old principles—at least, I hope they are. The old principles were true; the old principles will remain; and I would appeal to my Conservative friends, if other Members of the House will forgive me for saying one word specially to them. I do not want to say, and I hope I have not said, anything offensive either to my leaders or to their followers. I am a Conservative through
thick and thin. I believe in the principles of the Conservative party. There are a very large number of people also throughout the country who believe in them. There are some who would put duty to the Coalition in front of the principles of Conservatism. The only difference is that I put the principles of Conservatism in front of duty to the Coalition. On those lines I believe we shall find the future success of the politics of this country. I should like to appeal to my leaders in the Cabinet to come out and lead the Conservative party, because it is, in my view, the greatest instrument of good that this country has ever seen. It is the party which has done in the past great things for our country and our Empire, and I believe that, when the Coalition comes to an end, it is to the Conservative party, to Conservative principles, and to Conservative policy that we must look for the well-being of the country and the Empire.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I beg to second the Motion.
I am anxious not to travel over any of the same ground that my hon. Friend has covered, and I shall occupy as little of the time of the House as possible. I should, however, like to make one or two observations which are suggested to mc by an Amendment, which I see on the Paper, to my hon. Friend's Motion. It is in the names of several hon. Members, and its purport is that the idea of there being any lack of definite and coherent principles in the policy of the present Coalition Government is a myth, engendered by misunderstanding and misrepresentation. I think that even the hon. Member immediately behind me, who is so persistent in his interruptions, if he will devote his whole ability to it, will be able to see the point in a moment. This Amendment, as I have said, challenges the idea of there being any real lack of coherence or principle in the policy of the Government. If that be so, I wondered, as I read that Amendment—which I think is one of the funniest productions I have ever seen on the Order Paper—whether those who made themselves responsible for it gave as much as two minutes' thought to its meaning. If it means anything, the phenomenon which they have put down as their estimate of the situation can only be explained in one of two ways.
If there is no lack of coherence and definite principle, it can only be because there is no difference in principle between political parties; for the hon. Members will not deny that the Coalition Government comprises men of different political parties. Very well. Then, if they show no difference of principle, no lack of coherence, it can only be, either because difference of principle between political parties has disappeared, or because one or other of the two parties represented in the Cabinet has completely surrendered its view to the other.
By either of these methods, I agree, you can arrive at a perfectly definite and coherent system of policy; but it will take a great deal more than the authority of the hon. Members who have signed this Amendment to convince this House, at any rate, that the first of these alternatives is the correct one. There has never been, so far as I am aware, in the history of the world, any sort of democratic system of Government in which there has not immediately appeared party spirit and difference of opinion between one party and another, and it is, therefore, practically inconceivable that there is no difference whatever in political principle between, we will say, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. Has the one or the other of them surrendered his views and consented to give them the go-by? I do not think that either of those right hon. Gentlemen would admit that that was the explanation; and yet, if those differences are there, and if they have not been surrendered either on the one side or on the other, could anything be more foolish than to suggest that out of those differences of opinion asserted by those two different parties there could possibly issue a policy which was coherent and definite? I should like to ask those who imagine that these differences have disappeared when they disappeared. I wonder if any student of political science could find an authority for the disappearance of differences of political parties. Not only could they not find anything of the sort, but I think they would find, at all events among modern writers, a consistent view taken that the strong differences on political principle that divide parties are not only necessary in a democratic system but desirable. I remember listening, I think it was in this House, to one of the most
interesting speeches I ever heard delivered by the Lord President of the Council in which, with his great wealth of suggestive, analytical criticism of a matter of this sort, he told the House how impossible it would be for our politics to be carried on on any system except the party system, and he gave the weight of his great authority to the proposition that it would be not only impossible to do without it, but very undesirable. The same thing is to be found of course in all the commentators upon our system, from Walter Bagehot down to the present. They have all found that these differences are unavoidable and in the ordinary working of our system are desirable. The only question raised to-night is, that being so, whether you do not upset the healthy working of our Constitution by bringing those differences of political principle together into one body, the Cabnet, which, according to our Constitution, is charged with collective as well as individual responsibilty for the administration of this country.
My hon. Friend has shown some consequences of doing so. He pointed out that the fact of those differences is recognised by those who ought to know best—those who were recently in the Cabinet itself. Certainly those right hon. Gentlemen who were mentioned by my hon. Friend do not agree with the view expressed in the Amendment on the Paper that the idea of these differences of opinion is all a myth. That was not the view of the present Lord Chief Justice in the speech my hon. Friend quoted. It certainly was not the view of the Home Secretary in the speech he made at the same time, nor was it the view of the late Secretary of State for India, whose speech we all listened to the other day—a perfect revelation of the working of these conflicting principles in the Cabinet. We have been told once or twice, I think by some Cabinet Ministers, that in recent times—while this Coalition has lasted—the divisions of opinion in the Cabinet Council itself have not been on the accepted party lines. I have no doubt, of course, that we must take it on the authority of those right hon. Gentlemen that that is so, but I submit that that does not alter the case, because what happens in ordinary normal times? I suppose there never has been a party Cabinet which has existed for a considerable number of years without
differences of opinion coming up in the Cabinet itself. But what happens then? In ordinary circumstances, a Minister who finds himself in disagreement with his colleagues leaves the Cabinet, and if he feels strong enough—if he feels that he is in sympathy, for example, with the principles of the party opposite he crosses the Floor of the House and joins them. That has been done time after time. It was done, of course, on a memorable occasion by the illustrious father of the present Leader of the House. It was done, although he was not a Minister at the time, by the present Colonial Secretary. That is the way in ordinary working that disagreements resolve themselves when they appear among men of the same party in the same Cabinet. Under the present system they cannot do that. A Minister leaves the Government. What does he do? We have had the late Minister of Health and we have had the late Secretary of State for India, and the only thing they can do is to add one more decoration to that variegated Front Opposition Bench. They have no alternative set of principles which they can go and support with a view to making them ultimately prevail. All they can do is to form a variegated body divided as much in principle as the Cabinet which they left.
Let us take an illustration of what I mean. Hon. Members opposite have from time to time clearly expressed the view that in regard to the policy relating to Russia they have been entirely out of sympathy with the Colonial Secretary. They believe the Colonial Secretary has been endeavouring to pursue one policy and the Prime Minister another. I think they have a good deal of justification for it. So far as I am able to judge of those policies, I should be very strongly in sympathy with the Colonial Secretary and very strongly out of sympathy with the Prime Minister. Other hon. Members will take precisely the opposite view. But the point remains that you have there a division of opinion, and no alternative party in existence in the House and the country, owing to the disorganisation caused by the present procedure, to which either of those right hon. Gentlemen might go in order to give effect to these views. We have all admitted that the present system of Coalition was quite justified during the War. I do not know whether it has ever been very clearly
grasped why there is so much distinction between the War period and the present period. The difference is this. During the War, and we may say possibly for a short time after, but, at any rate, during the War, all parties, not only in the House, but in the country, had one aim and one object, and absolutely nothing else. We were all agreed we wanted to win the War, and the only possible room for difference of opinion was as to the method of carrying out that object. Those were small and minor matters. On the great matter of policy and of principle there was no possible division. But the moment we got away from the War, and the longer we are away from the War, and the further we open out into the general political field in which one problem after another comes up for discussion and solution, the more clearly will these aims and these differences of political principle which divide parties make themselves felt, and the more mischievous it becomes for the parties which really are divided in principle, pretending that they are not, pretending, as this Amendment pretends, that it is all a myth, and that they can perfectly well carry on the administration of the country.
I want to give another illustration derived from a recent speech of the Leader of the House. As I have mentioned it elsewhere I should like to mention it in his presence. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the Debates which we had on the recent Irish Bill, I suggested to him that, if the Conservative Members of the Cabinet had felt themselves unable any longer to support principles in relation to Ireland which they have supported all their life—and I could conceive that position arising—the proper and honourable course under these circumstances was for those Conservative Ministers to leave the Government and say that, although they were not prepared to resist the policy any longer, they would not themselves take the responsibility of carrying it out. The right hon. Gentleman in reply to that—I thought at the time it was a most amazing answer, and I submit now that it was an amazing answer—said the course I was asking him to take was a course of "ease and dishonour." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I find that very generally
cheered. That only shows the length to which the deterioration has gone, because that is not the doctrine that has been held by our leading men in the past. I am sorry that I have not here one of the most famous speeches ever delivered in this House by Macaulay.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): A Conservative statesman?

Mr. McNEILL: I did not say that he was a Conservative statesman, but Macaulay at all events was a constitutional authority. What he laid down was that the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman now upholds would, if carried out in this country, leave all public life in this country shipwreck, and I think that that stands to reason. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and all his Conservative colleagues, would have felt that if they had not been in a Coalition. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman had been Prime Minister and felt pressed by a powerful Opposition, and by circumstances, and said that it was no longer possible to maintain the hitherto accepted Unionist policy with regard to Ireland, he would not have said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), as Leader of the Opposition: "Come over here and carry this out." He would have said simply: "We cannot do it, and we will retire." It is quite true that there is the classic example of the action of Sir Robert Peel upon a famous occasion. But this has always been a stain on his memory, and we cannot accept the doctrine, that men when they can no longer resist a policy should make themselves responsible for carrying it out. But I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman felt compelled to do it. The right hon. Gentleman, I think in the same speech, said that there was such a thing as loyalty to his colleagues and his leader. I quite agree, and that is just where the mischief comes in.
9.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman felt pressed by the loyalty which he owes to his chief and his colleagues, but he also owes a loyalty to his party and his principles. Those two loyalties were in conflict. [HON. MEMBERS: "And to his country!"] He also owes a loyalty to his country, but that interruption does not do much honour to the right hon. Gentleman because it implies, if it means anything, that when the right hon. Gentleman pro-
fessed to be and was a Unionist he was not consciously doing his best for his country. I, on the contrary, assume in reference to the principles which the right hon. Gentleman has always professed and the policy of the party which he leads, that he is an adherent of the party and propounds that policy because he honestly thinks it best for the country. The result is unfortunately that loyalty to persons took precedence of loyalty to principles. That is just the cause of the mischief which inevitably occurs in a Coalition Government as soon as a Minister feels that he cannot really carry through on a straight line the policy in which he believes, because to do so would be to throw over his colleagues. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said when he said that it would be to take the course of ease and dishonour. He never could have been put in that position if it had not been for the evil system of this Coalition of men of different principles, and it is because we believe that this is a serious mischief that we bring forward this Motion in the hope that an end will be put to the system as soon as possible.

Lieut-Colonel HURST: I beg to move to leave out the words
can only be remedied by the establishment of a Ministry composed of men united in political principle,
and to add instead thereof the words
is a myth engendered by misunderstanding and misrepresentation; and that at present the best solution for our national difficulties is the co-operation of well-affected citizens of all political parties in working for the common good.
In moving this Amendment I feel, and I have no doubt that many hon. Members associated with me in this Amendment feel a little diffidence because we are younger in our Parliamentary experience than the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Resolution, and we are fully cognisant of the very valuable and eminent services which they have rendered both to the country and to the Conservative party in past times. If I may make a personal remark with regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), we in Lancashire have very kindly memories of him when, as Member for North-West Manchester, he helped to dissipate the propaganda which at that time were being sown there by the present Colonial
Secretary. But having said that, I should like to claim that though we are young in our Parliamentary experience, we may be really more in touch with the great mass of Conservative opinion in this country, and I think that we may justifiably say that we are not trying to wreck the Government or split our party. The issue between those who support the Resolution and those who support the Amendment is not between independence and dependence. We are as independent as they are. We are not in favour of fusion. I personally, and many of my friends, never took the coupon. We never asked for it, and we never shall ask for it. We do not regard the Coalition as a final stage in political development, and so far as Coalition Liberals are concerned, we suspect, of course, a certain number of them. At the last election, when "Coalition" was a very popular word, as everybody knows, a number of Liberals in the north called themselves, for the purpose of the election, Coalition Liberals, and when that phrase lost its magic they have since reverted to that form of original sin which is called Liberalism without a prefix.
We have heard a good deal from the two hon. Gentlemen about Conservative principles. It is very easy to talk about principles. What I would like to know is, what are the principles to which they adhere? I suggest that the true and traditional Conservative principles are attachment to liberty and Empire, and devotion and attachment to the Crown and Constitution. There is nothing in the record of the present Government that in any way offends any single one of those principles. The real issue between what is called the Die-hard group and the main body of Conservatives is the difference between that old type of mediaeval Toryism, which regarded all change and all reform as revolution, and which regarded the masses of the people as the mere mob, and our Conservatism, which is the Conservatism of Disraeli and of Joseph Chamberlain, which responds to the changing need of changing time. It is highly significant that hon. Members who are mainly associated with the Die-hard movement represent rural and seaside constituencies like Eastbourne and Canterbury, like Bournemouth and Dover, and that those of us who have put our
names to the Amendment represent millions of workers, of keener wits and greater responsibility, who have to earn their livelihood in the workshops and warehouses of Lancashire or amid the clang of the Yorkshire looms.
I suggest that the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening have not, if I may respectfully say so, understood the extraordinarily unprecedented conditions and circumstances of the age in which we are living. We are living in an era as different from 1914 as the times after Waterloo were different from the era before 1789. It is no good talking in the abstract about principles. What the country and the Government have to face is the practical question of how to govern and how to meet the great difficulties of the nation. With great respect to the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, I say they have actually not put up any alternative to the way in which the country has been governed since the Armistice. It is very easy to say that things would have been very much better if we had had another Government, but it is not easy to realise how that could have been the case. The position of the supporters of the Resolution reminds me very much of a General who plans a campaign by looking simply at the roads and the railways on a map without any regard to the rivers and the natural obstacles in the way of that strategy.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER SHEE: No Generals do that.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: What I suggest is that the really dominating influences on English politics, and the dominating obstacles to any Government since the War, have been three in number. First of all, there has been the enormous impoverishment of our markets overseas—the impoverishment of Europe, the impoverishment of Asia through the de-valuation of silver, and the impoverishment of Africa through the relative fall in the value of raw produce. The second cause of trouble has been the immensely increased cost of production in our country, owing to the higher taxes which are involved by meeting interest on the War Debt and by paying pensions; and the third difficulty has been the intense and continuous industrial strife, which has embittered relations between employers and employed. The fair way to judge of
the politics of the last few years is to answer this question: How have the Government attempted to grapple with these three great difficulties? It is when you apply that test that a great many of the criticisms passed upon the Government appear to be misplaced. Let us take foreign affairs first. When you consider how America has left Europe in the lurch, how the great burden of policing and financing the world has rested so largely on British shoulders, I think you will appreciate that it has been a most wonderful performance that, with our small Army, we have kept the peace in a tottering world, from Iraq to Palestine, and from Silesia to the Rhine.
Let us take the three great tests of Government wisdom—India, Egypt and Ireland. Two alternative courses have been suggested by different sections in this House, one course by the Die-Hard group and one course by Members of the Opposition. With regard to India, what do the Die-Hard group want? They would have us stamp out the idea of race and the spirit of nationality which have come into being, not in consequence of the policy or the misdeeds of any particular individual, but in consequence of a great world movement which no Government in existence can control. It is the same thing in Egypt and in Ireland. The spirit of nationality and the forces of disorder are world-wide tendencies due to the action of no individual, no party, and no Government. They are due to causes utterly beyond the control of any man or any nation. What would you have us do in those three countries? We are told that we ought to stamp out all the discontent in India by force of arms, that we ought to crush the idea of giving the rights of self-determination to Egypt, and that we ought to reconquer Ireland at the immense cost of blood and money which necessarily would be involved.
We have heard all those suggestions made again and again in this House. Should we be any better off at the finish if we did establish law and order by force of arms in those three countries? It would be even worse if we followed the plan of the Labour party by evacuating India and withdrawing the British Army of Occupation from Egypt. Of course the result would simply be infinite misery and the wiping out of all trade and prosperity. I agree that the present condition of affairs is not perfect. But, after
all, India is not a shambles. Egypt has ceased to be a British Protectorate, but there is still a British Army of Occupation maintaining law and order, and the Sudan is still a British dependency. So far as Ireland is concerned, things are not worse than they were a few months ago. Everyone knows that. In fact there is more hope now than there has been for years past of putting an end to that undying feud and dissipating for ever the clouds which have so long dimmed the glory of the Empire.
Let me turn to the question of economy. That has not been mentioned by the Mover or Seconder of the Resolution, but at the same time it is one of the vital needs of the day. I admire the courage with which the Government has cut down expenditure. Newspapers say that cutting down expenditure is popular. Of course it is not popular. The moment you propose to cut down expenditure on the Army or the Navy or education or social services, everybody who is interested in those particular objects is up in arms at once. I think the Government has been brave in cutting down expenditure. We know what the alternative would be if the country had the misfortune to fall under the control of the Opposition. Then, with regard to peace at home, the Government has provided machinery by which trade disputes can be settled, and it has realised—this is very much more important—that the settlement of industrial disputes does not rest on machinery, but rests on mutual good-will. It has realised rightly that all the State interference and State socialism of the War are now an anachronism, that it is far better to let individuals work out their own salvation, and that that is the truest way to industrial prosperity. We are told that there have been differences in the Cabinet. Of course there have been differences among all men in times like these, because the problems are so big. It is impossible to find unanimity. The important thing is that on great national questions we are all united.
What is the great danger at the present time? The danger is not made by us, but it is there. It is not politicians who make political issues, but events which make them. It is a fact that the great danger now is Socialism and Bolshevism. That is the great danger which is stalking through Europe to-day. In order to be
wholeheartedly united in view of this great danger, is it idle to talk about co-operation? After all, there are different sorts of Liberals, good Liberals, bad Liberals and indifferent Liberals—mostly, it may be, indifferent—but if there are Liberals and Labour men too, willing to work with other lovers of their country in the common good, to put down this great danger and the great disaster which the triumph of Communism would involve, surely it is worth while to co-operate. What do we value most in national life? We value our Crown, our Constitution, our liberty, and our Empire. If Communism were ever to triumph there would be an end of Crown and Constitution, there would be an end of our liberty, and an end of our Empire and an end of everything. If right-thinking men can combine in resisting this great danger, surely that is the best course for patriots to adopt. Who really wants to go back to 1914? An hon. Member asked a right question when he asked the Mover of this Resolution whether he had not learned anything since the War. We have learned much since the War, and we know that, however bitter party feeling may sometimes be, however much one may feel oneself at enmity with men who hold different political views, the big things in national life are common to us all. After our experience in the War, we are not going to adopt the policy of relapsing, as if all danger was over, into the old party feuds of 1914. I believe we have learned something in the War, and although the time may come when the party rivalries may revive, so long as it is possible to maintain common ground for common ends, then surely we ought to do so. I do not envy those who simply wish to relapse into pre-War divisions. I rather envy those who believe in the vision of a better time, which does not only mean greater material prosperity for all, but will also mean greater good will and greater peace between different classes in our country and between the different nations of the world. If cooperation between right-thinking citizens can do something to bring that ideal nearer, surely it is something to work for and something which gives us hope, and in that hope I beg to move my Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: With some perturbation, I rise to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend
who has just sat down. We are but young in Parliamentary life, but, as he has said, we represent industrial constituencies, and we have more opportunity than some other hon. Members of mixing among all classes of the community and knowing what are their views. I consider, with all respect to the hon. Baronet who moved this Motion, that his opening was extremely feeble. As against that, it is quite easy to see that his Motion has been drawn with the ingenuity of a lawyer, but I would rather come down to earth and plainly call a spade a spade. I would rather do away with all camouflage and if that Motion has been put down in the light in which I believe it was put down, it only means two things. First, that it is an endeavour to split the Coalition, and, second, that it is intended to split the Unionist party from top to bottom.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: The hon. Baronet says it is not intended to do the second. He cannot contend that for one moment. He, as I understand, represents the Die-hards in this House, but all we have heard from him and from the hon. Member who seconded his Motion, has been a sort of theoretical discourse on political principles. I would like, with great respect, to remind him that at the present time we are concerned with the different and very dangerous propositions which confront us at the moment, and are not concerned with political principles of 20 and 30 years ago. I contend that all these political shibboleths should go into the back-ground. What is the fault which the hon. Baronet really found with the Coalition with regard to their political principles? He complains that Unionists to-day have surrenderd to Free Traders. I contend we have done nothing of the sort. I speak as a Unionist and as a supporter of the Coalition, and as a business man, and I will have nothing to do with Free Trade or Tariff Reform. People seem to have forgotten, as I have said in this House over and over again, that we have had a War. We are faced with a trade problem at the present time different to any we have ever been faced with before, and I am out to adopt any method or any principle that will enable us to get trade back to this country, whether people like to label themselves as Free Traders
or Tariff Reformers. It is time, as I have said, that these two shibboleths were put into the background.
The Mover of the Motion referred to the unity and the absence of party strife during the War. It was owing to that unity and owing also, if I may say so, to the Premier that this country was victorious in the War. Is the hon. Baronet suggesting for one moment that we are at the present time faced with a lesser crisis than that with which we were faced in 1914? The crisis is far more dangerous, because in 1914 you had every individual in this country burning with patriotism to keep the enemy from landing on these shores, but since the War, I am sorry to say, a great deal of that patriotism seems to have got into the background, and had we fought together since the Armistice as we did during the War, this country would not be in the position it is in to-day. The Government has been blamed from many quarters for the unemployment which now exists. It is not the Government which has created that unemployment. Every business man, and I am sure every hon. Member of the Labour party also, knows that the greatest factor to which the country owes its present state is that of the continual stoppages of work which we have had in every industry. The country has never got time to recover, and until there is better feeling and more toleration between employers and employed we shall never succeed in bringing the country back to the position it held before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is why you locked them out!"] Hon. Members say that is why we locked them out. I am not going into the question of the engineering dispute, but let me say—and I think I shall have the support of every honest trade union leader in this—that if the whole of the men in the engineering trade had voted in the ballot, they would have accepted the advice their trade union leaders gave them, and there would never have been any question of a lock-out. Only one-third voted, and the result was that the Bolshevists and the Socialists in the trade union got hold of them, and they were the means of this present lock-out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Face the facts!"] I am facing facts; I am giving my opinion upon them.

Mr. DEVLIN: This is a Tory meeting. Do not interrupt.

Lieut-Commander ASTBURY: The Mover and Seconder of the Motion have never told us what party they would wish in power if the Coalition went out.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Conservative party.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: They know as well as I do that if we went to the country as the Conservative party alone, there would not be the slightest chance of our coming back.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No!

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: If we did come back, in the present condition of the Conservative party, according to the illustration of an hon. Member composed of Die-hards, Anti-wasters—

Mr. J. JONES: Blow-hards!

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: —and Independents, we should have a worse conglomeration than there is on the Treasury Bench. What the country needs to-day is a cessation of the little sections in this House that are trying simply to promote strife. The country desires a Government that will sit down and get to work on the things they are up against, and that will get these questions settled. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) that if Die-hards carry out an expedition, which I saw they meant to do, through the Lancashire constituencies, as soon as they come into my constituency—

Mr. DEVLIN: They will die easy!

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: What we require to-day is a Government composed of men of all moderate opinion drawn from all parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "All parties?"]—men who will travel with the present state of things, instead of keeping to the shibboleths of a bygone age.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I rise thus early in the Debate, it is because I am anxious that this Resolution having been moved, there should not be given by myself or by any friend or supporter of this Government any occasion for anyone to believe that there was not time for the House to give a decision upon it. Whether the House is being occupied as
usefully as it might be, whether the discussion is as edifying as it should be, these may be matters upon which opinion may be divided, but since my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has moved this Motion, by all means let the House divide. A fortnight ago my hon. Friend was the envied of all observers. He had achieved the ambition of the private Member. He had drawn the "gros lot" in the Parliamentary lottery. He had secured first place for a Motion.

Mr. J. JONES: Now he is an also-ran.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There was a moment of hesitation in his manner. You, Mr. Speaker, called upon him to name the subject which he wished to bring before the House. Any careful observer, as I am of my hon. Friend's Parliamentary proceedings, could see that he had been taken by surprise. My hon. Friend is not one of those earnest seekers after reform who bring down to the House every day an attaché case full of recipes for a new and better world, nor had he taken the precaution, which I believe is sometimes taken by Members, of procuring from the Whips one of those anodyne Resolutions which soothe the House, even to the point of a count, and give wearied legislators an occasional rest from their labours. No, Sir, you named the hon. Member, and for a moment he stood in hesitation. Then he had a happy thought—to call attention to the position of the Government, and to move a Resolution. My hon. Friend, remembering he was a leader of a party in this House—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, no!

HON. MEMBERS: Prospective!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: More than that, actual. He remembered he was the leader—

Mr. J. JONES: And the party.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —and the only leader of our party in the House, since the whole of my 10 colleagues, myself included, have departed from the true faith, and are no longer worthy of support. Accordingly, he gave notice that he would call attention to the position of the Government, and that he would move a Resolution.

Mr. J. JONES: He would move anything.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Who could say what might and what might not happen from this great determination. The Government might be shaken to its foundations, it might be overthrown, and a new Government might be needed—and a new Prime Minister too! He hoped that one of the small pebbles he had picked up from the brook would slay Goliath, hence forth the path would be clear—

Mr. J. JONES: For the London General Omnibus Company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —and the highest authority in the land would have no difficulty in determining to what quarter to entrust the formation of a really great and principled Ministry. My hon. Friend must, indeed, have been happy, and none of his old comrades in this House will grudge him the enjoyment of those sweet hours. Then a new dilemma arose. He had not merely to call attention to the position of the Government, but he had undertaken to move a Resolution. What was the Resolution to be? He had not thought about it. He did not know, and 11 days passed before the Resolution could be framed. But I do not doubt that the new Cabinet was in constant and daily session. For 10 or 11 days it was framing—

Mr. GWYNNE: How many days did you take to frame the Genoa Resolution? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —was framing the Resolution which was to be the foundation of honest government.

Mr. DEVLIN: Say something about this leader, the hon. Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer).

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There must be a leader, primus inter pares, if no more, and if I diverged and examined the difference between all the prospective leaders, well, I should prevent that Division which I am anxious to secure. I am a little surprised that it took so long for this new Cabinet to frame their Resolution, for, after all, their task was a simple one. They were not cunning politicians, crafty tacticians, seeking a platform on which they could gain votes. They were not old Parliamentary hands
trying to devise a Resolution which would secure support from discordant elements within this House. No, Sir. They were honest, simple citizens—

Mr. J. JONES: More simple than honest.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —acting under a profound sense of responsibility, an impelling consideration to duty, determined to put before this House and the country a clear, specific definition of principles, which challenged everyone who did not agree with them, in what ever quarter of the House he might sit, on which, if their Motion succeeded, they would form their Government and conduct the business of the country. What was required was not confused criticism of other people's acts, which is so easy, so simple—we all give any amount of it; what was wanted was a clear statement of their own views, showing exactly where they differed from the present Government, wherein their present leaders had failed, and differentiating sharply between them and those sections of the House from which, I suppose, they are still even further divided, than from those whom they took to be their leaders. What was wanted was a new Athanasian Creed, outside of which there was no political salvation. Their course was perfectly clear. They stood for perfect unity of thought in the councils of the nation, for purity of principle, in which we have been sadly and deplorably deficient—

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Hear hear!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say how I rejoice when I find that I correctly interpret the opinions and arguments of my critics. I think that particular critic has had a note of warning from the Unionist Association in his own constituency, but my hon. Friend need not think that I attach the less importance to his opinions on that account; I only remark that they have a less representative character. These Gentlemen, a little restive even under my anticipatory criticism, were above all to avoid all entangling alliances, such as I have unfortunately fallen into with the Prime Minister. They were to have a splendid isolation indeed. We could all draw that Resolution. With a little thought, say an hour's reflection, we could have found a Resolution for them that would have challenged everybody who did not
agree with them. The only trouble is that they would not have agreed about it themselves. But, alas! a serpent crept into their paradise.

Mr. THOMAS: Who was it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Ah! That I do not know, but look at their Resolution. They stand for purity of political faith. There is to be no alloy. There is to be no corrupt co-operation—not even a chance meeting in the Division Lobby, unless underlain by a real unity of conviction. But what is the Resolution they have drawn? Is there a single principle in it? Is there any definition of their faith? No, Sir. This new Cabinet, after sitting for ten days in constant and anxious consideration, produces a Resolution for which every critic of the Government can vote because it condemns the Government for which every supporter of every alternative Government can vote, because all that it demands is an alternative Government. Was there ever a greater sham? My hon. Friend who moved the Resolution and who thinks my course devious, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), who thinks I have no regard for principle—what are they doing? Asserting their own principles? Not a bit. Currying the favour, seeking the support, bidding for the vote—

Mr. GWYNNE: Not of murderers!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —of anyone whom they can get.

Mr. J. JONES: Give them socks!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These critics of the Coalition that exists make their first step in condemnation of the Coalition by a Motion deliberately drawn to get into their Lobby the maximum of support from those with whom they have not one thing in common, except dislike of the Prime Minister and contempt for myself. I congratulate them on their first effort to break our party and to establish a new Coalition.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The Labour party often vote for you.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Resolution does not help me to an understanding of their principles. No mention is made of their principles, lest principle should interfere with practice. I turn, therefore, to
their speeches. I thought I had got a little light—it was not very much—from the speech which I see my hon. Friend addressed to his constituents in Twickenham last night. I read it in the "Morning Post." It is remarkable, incidentally, that the first observation which the "Morning Post" thought it well to report was that someone in a high position should go to the great manufacturing centres, and tell the workmen that they would have to work harder, and produce more goods.
Someone in a high position.
To whom did my hon. Friend look for counsel that would really be listened to?
Someone in a high position like the Prime Minister.
He could not keep the Prime Minister out the moment he wanted to do business. When my hon. Friend forms his Government, I shall be on that bench, but I can clearly see that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be holding some high office and employed in all the most difficult and the most thankless jobs. But really that was not what interested me most, because I was in search of principles. Here is my hon. Friend's declaration:
Though the Die-hards might have their political future at stake, though they might die politically, yet the principles for which 1hey stood would never perish. They were built on a belief in God, King and Empire. Such principles could never die.
That was good enough for Twickenham. He did not repeat it in this House to-night, and he did not for obvious reasons. How is he going to define it? How is he going to indicate it to the Whips? Is he going to say to the Whips—I believe there are Whips in that party—"Go down there below the Bar and say, 'In this Lobby for God, King and Empire,' and in that Lobby for" What? Oh, what a difference there is between a peroration at Twickenham and the Floor of the House of Commons! No, Sir, he did not repeat that. I have sought to divine what was the crucial issue on which the Government had gone wrong, and, above all, the crucial issue which made my hon. Friend resolve to challenge on the Floor of this House, in the presence of opponents, for whom he has provided a merry holiday—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: You have helped towards it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: —but the action of every one of the Unionist Members of the Cabinet, from my right hon. Friend the veteran leader of our party, the Lord President, downwards. I am not sure that I have got it right, but I gather that Canadian store cattle have something to do with it. "God, King, and Empire" have disappeared, and Canadian store cattle have taken their place.
My hon. Friend, I think, committed himself in a moment of surprise, when he was overwhelmed by his unexpected success in the Ballot, into raising a subject and moving a Motion which, in calmer moments, he would have reserved for discussion elsewhere. My hon. Friend has differed from the great bulk of his party before. He has challenged Divisions in this House, or he and his friends have. No hard words have been said; no irrevocable division has been made, and we have looked forward to re-uniting, as has often happened before, the moment a particular subject of difference has disappeared. He has now chosen to make the present difference of opinion between a small fraction of the Unionist party in this House and the great bulk of the Unionist party in this House a subject for public and formal discussion in the presence of those who, whatever be the differences between my hon. Friends and me, are the opponents of us both. He seeks to magnify those differences, while I seek to minimise them.

Lord HUGH CECIL: Hear, hear!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I knew that would appeal to my Noble Friend, who calls himself a Conservative, but who is anarchistic if he is anything. When my Noble Friend goes into the Lobby with his avowed political opponents he is happy, because he knows that nobody agrees with him. He votes with his political opponents for reasons which are alien to them. He separates from his political friends for reasons which only he himself can understand. The only thing which could distress my Noble Friend is that he should find himself in agreement with anyone, above all with members of the party to which he professes to belong. He is constantly astonishing and surprising us. He always delights us, but he never influences us. But the ironical cheer of the Noble Lord for the moment turned me from my
argument. My observation was this; as the man selected by all the members of the party to be their Leader in this House, I have done my best to minimise the differences, and to promote union. I wonder if my hon. Friend really is sensible of what he is doing, and whether he considers he is serving the party to which we belong, and the causes which that party is bound to serve, by such action as he has taken to-night in this Motion.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me for a moment. I think he is a little unfair. I do not like to mention private conferences, but my right hon. Friend will allow me to say, I am sure, to tell the House that my friends who have been supporting and working with me in this matter had a private conference with the leaders of the party some few weeks ago—with my right hon. Friend himself—and they allowed us to put our case before them, I hope with fairness and courtesy to them. They received us. What happened it is not for me to say; but it is a little unfair to us to say that we have not taken any other course than that of coming before the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not suggested that my hon. Friend did not take any other course. The meeting, it was agreed, should be private, and it became public by an indiscretion which was regretted by those who met us, and by myself. I am not going to refer to what took place. What I was saying was that. I wondered whether he really considered what would be the effect upon the party to which he belonged, and upon the cause which that party is bound to serve, by the action which he has taken and the Motion he has laid before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. E. McNeill) seconded. He and the mover sit in what, I suppose, are under any circumstances safe Conservative seats—at any rate, they were, and I hope they are still. Have they given a thought to the position of their colleagues elsewhere?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Vote catching—selfish!

10.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Have they given the slightest thought to opinion elsewhere within our own party? Have they considered what is the opinion of Unionists in St. Rollox, Glasgow? Have they con-
sidered the effect on Conservative opinion in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Bristol, or in any of the great industrial centres? My hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Resolution are going counter to the great mass of opinion in the Unionist party throughout the country. They are living in little coteries in their own constituencies and in their own circles in London and they do not realise what is the movement of the world. For the sake of narrow party spirit and old party jealously, they are wrecking the great causes for which we are working. They have been unable either in the country or on the Floor of this House to-night to state the principles of our party to which we have been unfaithful. They have deliberately refrained from putting forward such principles in the Motion as a challenge to the House. What did my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury say I He talked about how in the old days—I do not quite understand what happened—but he said a Minister resigned because he did something—I am not sure what. In those days what did a Minister do? He would come out if he resigned. A very remarkable observation! I am bound to say it is all the more remarkable because of the kind of speech that resigning Ministers have lately shown us. What are these luckless ex-Ministers to do? They have no alternative principles. What does that mean?

Mr. R. McNEILL: I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg your pardon, I took it down. "They had no alternative set of principles." What does that mean? That resignations from the Government have not been on the question of principle—that there is no division on the question of principle. My hon. Friends who were responsible for this Motion have either been unable, or what is worse, they have deliberately refrained from stating, either in speech or Resolution, the principles of Unionist policy to which they allege that I and all my Unionist colleagues have been untrue. There are only two explanations. Either they are unable to find such principles, and we stand justified, or they have deliberately refrained from doing so in order to get a bigger vote in the Lobby, in order to swell the small section of our own party
which has split away from us, by a large section of men with whom they have nothing in common. In either case, I say, they stand condemned.

Viscount WOLMER: The Leader of the House has just treated the House to a speech which I venture to say was hardly worthy of his position. The right hon. Gentleman has told us with great wit that this Motion of ours may unite hon. Members of other parties who do not hold the same political views as we do against the Government, and he went on to say that in this Motion the Die-hards had put down that they were admitting the principle of Coalition. I do not think that that is a fair point to make against the Die-hards, because four times already they have gone into the Lobby, a mere handful of Members, against practically the whole of the rest of the House of Commons, against our own party and Leaders, simply on questions of principle, and yet the right hon. Gentleman gives is a lecture on the drafting of a Motion. I think that lecture was uncalled for. If there be a group of Members in this House who have shown that they are not afraid to go into the Lobby as a small party, it is the Die-hards. They have done it before and they may have to do it on several occasions again.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to lecture my hon. Friend for having put down this Motion, on the ground that it proves of considerable embarrassment to the party. I do not see why it should prove any embarrassment to any political party. What the Motion says is that it is desirable that the Government should be actuated by strict and definite political principles, and I do not see why any party should find it inconvenient to discuss that proposition. Apparently my right hon. Friend does find it inconvenient, because throughout the whole of his speech he did not discuss it at all. The reason why I desire to support this Motion is because it appears to me to be eminently relative to recent events. We regard it as a very great evil that the Government should be actuated by no known principles or theory of government. I believe that the public have a right to know where politicians stand. They have a right to know what the various parties stand for and to demand a certain degree of consistency. I would
not claim a rigid consistency, but a certain degree of consistency from politicians presenting themselves for election; but that theory is entirely set at naught by the present Government. They have boxed the compass not on one question, but on half a dozen questions. There is the prime question, of course, of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman actually said to-night that he challenged us to point to a single factor in which he had been inconsistent in his faith as a Unionist. If the establishment of the Irish Free State be not a breach of Unionist principle, I do not know what political principles are.
But that is not the specific complaint I desire to make against the Government to-night. It is that they have started on one policy and one set of principles in regard to Ireland and that they ended on another. They supported the principle of trying to establish law and order by the strong arm of the Executive. They started on the principle of taking the Sinn Feiners by the throat, and now they have come to the principle of taking them by the hand, just in the same way as this Government started on a career of reckless extravagance and has now gone in for a compaign of rigid economy, just as they started to build 500,000 houses under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch (Dr. Addison) and have now completely reversed that policy. They started on a plan of giving a fixed price to the farmer and a guaranteed wage to the agricultural labourer, and now they have completely reversed that policy. They threatened a serious collision with the House of Lords because that body made some difficulty about passing the Ministry of Transport Act, and within 24 months they themselves proposed the abolition of that Act. That is what we complain of in this Motion. We complain of the fact that there are no definable principles, no understood modes of procedure on the part of the Government, and we regard that, apart from the expediency or inexpediency of their actual purposes in itself as a very great evil in our public life. Then we have the question of the Safeguarding of Industries Act which is a concession to Tariff Reform on the one hand and, on the other hand, the late Attorney-
General and present Lord Chief Justice said at the same time that the Act was being passed that the Coalition stood for Free Trade. When you have a Minister proclaiming that a Government which has passed a Measure of protection is a Free Trade Government and when that Government reverses its policy on every other question, then I say we have a right to complain about the absence of political principle on the part of the Government. That is the matter to which my hon. Friends have drawn attention to-night, and surely they are entitled to draw attention to it.
It is very desirable that the matter should be insisted on. If the public once begin to lose faith in the sincerity of politicians it is going to be a bad day for representative institutions in this country. Such discredit as they have recently fallen into has been, I believe, to a large extent because the public has, to a certain degree, lost faith in the sincerity of the Coalition. That is the one point which is of importance to the elector of this country, because it is only at rare intervals that he has the power of giving the vote, and it is absolutely fundamental to the value of that vote that he should know where the man he is voting for or against is going to direct his political course I challenge anybody to say what the policy of the Prime Minister will be on any single question six months hence. Has anybody got the slightest idea what his policy will be in regard to Ireland?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: What will yours be?

Viscount WOLMER: Mine will be a Unionist policy. We have not the slightest idea where the Prime Minister will be, either in regard to Ireland, our negotiations with Russia, our policy in India, in Egypt, or on any other question. It is perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to take any line he likes on any subject under the sun, and he has already taken totally inconsistent attitudes on all the chief questions of the day. It is useless my hon. Friends who have supported this Amendment telling us that the conditions of the age are so different now to what they were before the War. I do not care what the age is, but in every age it is important that men
should say what they think, should believe what they say, and should stick to some coherent line of thought and some clearly demarked line of policy.
Fundamental principles of politics are essentially the same to-day as they were before the War. It is true that the circumstances and conditions have altered, but the fundamental principles remain the same. My hon. Friends who have spoken have boasted that inasmuch as they were representatives of Northern constituencies, they were in an altogether superior position to representatives of Southern constituencies. I think my hon. Friend told us that the men of Lancashire were more intelligent and more independent than the men of the South. I have had the advantage of having been both a Lancashire Member and a Hampshire Member, and I can assure the House that if anybody thinks that the agricultural labourer of the South of England is not an independent man he is making a very great mistake indeed, and he is making an equally great mistake if he thinks he is not a highly intelligent man.

Mr. STANTON: He elected you.

Viscount WOLMER: The South of England is predominantly Conservative as opposed to the North, and I was surprised to hear in the mouths of two Conservatives that the North possessed political wisdom superior to the South. The hon. Mover and Seconder of the Amendment told us that the Coalition stood for the fundamental principles of liberty, Empire, and the Constitution. I think I may say that that generalisation is very nearly as vague as that of my hon. Friend near me, of which the right hon. Gentleman complained. I was hoping to learn from the right hon. Gentleman a little bit more about the attitude of the Coalition in regard to liberty, Empire, and Constitution, but as he did not address himself to the Motion at all, but confined himself to witticisms, I did not get any enlightenment. Of course, to say that the Coalition stands for liberty, Empire, and Constitution is a mere platitude. Every party, I presume, in this House stands for those principles, although we have our own ideas with regard to their application.
My hon. Friend wound up by saying that the real danger of the nation was Bolshevism and Socialism. I think that an even greater danger is Socialism in disguise. If Socialism is to be carried out I would rather it was carried out by hon. Members above the Gangway than by those who really did not believe in and esteem it. I say that neither Bolshevism nor Socialism can be fought in this country except by politicians stating what they really do believe, and submitting the issue to the country. You cannot defeat Bolshevism and Socialism by a whole series of make-believes. The Coalition is one big make-believe. It makes believe that there is unity of principle within its ranks. There is not. There is only a series of compromises. It makes believe it settled the Irish question. It has not done so; it has reduced the whole of Ireland to a welter of civil war. It makes believe it is going to solve the economic problem of Europe by calling a Conference at Genoa. The whole policy of the Coalition may be summed up in words that were very common in the Army—"eyewash" and "camouflage." That is why we support the Motion put down by my hon. Friend. We do not doubt the political sincerity of the supporters of the Coalition Government, but we do say that their attitude and their conduct is such as to make the ordinary citizen who does not know them personally exceedingly suspicious. We feel that that is a great evil in our political situation. We desire that the policy of the Government should be carried out on coherent principles and in a manner all can understand.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not propose to detain the House for very long, because on these occasions after dinner the opportunity for a long discussion is not given to us, and necessarily everyone must speak with a brevity which considers the feelings of his audience. The Debate has been marked by the moving of an Amendment in support of which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal delivered what, so far as the first half of it was concerned, must be called a very bitter speech. I was amazed when, later on in his speech, he expressed a desire for unity. The Germans have a proverb, "With vinegar you do not catch flies," and, if my hon. Friend really spoke in the interest of unity, I am afraid that the inefficiency which is so often found in the
Government marked his speech in that respect also. A speech more likely to produce discord, more likely to excite resentment, to provoke retaliation, could hardly have been delivered. My right hon. Friend later began to chaff me, and I can assure him I do not mind his doing that. I have voted with him very often, and I believe that whenever we have voted together we have always been right. But I will admit this, that I have supported my party more strenuously and unremittingly when they have been in difficulties, as they were between 1910 and 1914, than when, with a vast, an overwhelming majority, as in the present House, they are engaged in supporting a Liberal Prime Minister with very little regard to Conservative principles. My right hon. Friend and I were members of the original Die-hards in 1911. He was then what he now calls an anarchist; that is to say, he was defending principles which his leaders had abandoned—which is his present definition of the term, and an original definition, like so much else in the attitude of the present Government.
We have, after all, to consider the Amendment, first of all, according to the rules of Order, and the Amendment is conceived in very strange terms. It says that the lack of definite and coherent principle
is a myth engendered by misunderstanding and misrepresentation, and that at present the best solution for our national difficulties is the co-operation of well-affected citizens of all political parties in working for the common good.
We are admonished in so many different quarters. Here in this Amendment we are directed to aim at the
co-operation of well-affected citizens of all political parties.
Yet my right hon. Friend almost lost himself in indignation because he suspected my hon. Friend of having put down a Motion for which anyone but a Conservative could vote. I do not see why we should not try, if we have the mind to do so, to get "the co-operation of well-affected citizens of all political parties," just as much as anyone else. What difference does my right hon. Friend make, I wonder, between bidding for the votes of anyone you can get, and "the co-operation of well-affected citizens of all political parties"? It seems to me that they are very much the same thing.
This Amendment seems to me to have been drafted by the ghost of Mrs. Eddy. It is apparently argued that the disagreements within the Government are the evolution of mortal mind, a
myth engendered by misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
But is it really a myth that the late Secretary of State for India said that he had been resisting for three years in the Cabinet the pro-Greek policy of the Prime Minister, which he went on to say was not pro-Greek because it was ill-considered for the object in view? Is that folklore? And then there are the other inconsistencies of policy. Is it a myth that the Government little more than 12 months ago talked about murder gangs, and getting them by the throat, and having the murderers on the run, and then a few months later welcomed them to Downing Street in friendly negotiation? These things are not myths, and, unhappily, the consequences of them are not myths.
Is it impossible for my right hon. Friend to believe what is really the truth, that what animates us in supporting this Resolution is the deep seated conviction that the present Government, or rather I should really say the present Prime Minister, is ruining the country? The honest motive behind this Resolution is that conviction. Many of us disliked the present Coalition from the beginning, but for a very long time we engaged in no active opposition to it, because it seemed to be the only possible Government at the moment. But gradually the conviction has been forced home upon me, at any rate, that the present Government is destroying the country. They have destroyed the country in Ireland. Whoever saw a policy so calamitously unsuccessful as well as so disgracefully inconsistent? They are destroying the country, I am afraid, in India. They have jeopardised the national interests by their inconceivable bungling in the Near East. The whole of the Versailles policy of reparations combines every possible fault, and realises no possible advantage. When they engaged on that policy, there were three things that a wise man might have had in view. There was the desirability of getting what reparations could be obtained from Germany, there was the importance of propitiating and conciliating the sentiments of our great
French allies, and there was, also, as it were, on the other side—the different measures seem to point in that direction—the immense importance of composing the general European unrest and producing general tranquillity throughout the Empire. The Government have done none of these things. The Prime Minister has visited, I should be afraid to say how many, health resorts in pursuing different Conferences. He has got none of the three. He has not got a penny of reparations, and he is bitterly alienating French feeling. Was there ever such sheer, brutal incompetence? Look at Ireland. With so much dishonour you might have brought a little peace. They have all the disadvantages of sacrificing every principle they have ever stood for, contra-dieting themselves flatly within the space of twelve months, and they do not realise the smallest measure of administrative success. The thing is a manifest and crying failure, and has become a grave national danger.
That is, in a few words, the case for the Motion and the case against the Amendment. All this talk about the cooperation of well affected citizens of all political parties in working for the common good, enforced by the sort of partisan raillery in which my right hon. Friend indulged, does not really advance the national good an atom. I can quite understand them saying that in grave crises the Government pursue the national good to the total subordination of all partisan purposes. We should all say that. But then you must really achieve the national good, and you cannot do that unless you have very great foresight, unless you look ahead. Have the Government ever looked ahead in India, in Egypt, in Iraq, in the Near East, in Turkey, in Greece, in respect to housing, in respect to agriculture, in respect to the policy of economy? Why was not the Geddes Committee appointed long ago, at the very beginning? We were told by my right hon. Friend, amongst others, over and over again that, desirable as economy was, it was really impossible to suggest any considerable economies, and then when the cry outside had grown too loud, not in deference to principle, but only in deference to this very maxim which my right hon. Friend so much despises, of bidding for votes from anyone you can get them from—only for that reason they went in
for economy at the last moment, and they find there are a great many economies which can be made. Was there ever such incompetence and such inefficiency as that? My conscience would sit very lightly if this Motion were carried by myself and a number of well-effected citizens of the Labour, Liberal, and Conservative parties, as I am quite sure that no Prime Minister could be so bad as the present Prime Minister, and that so long as he is Prime Minister the condition of the country will go on getting worse and worse, as it has gone on getting worse and worse ever since the Armistice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Every part of the Government policy is worse now than it was in the beginning. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. STANTON: How have you helped it?

Lord H. CECIL: I am not a Minister. If I had been a Minister, I would have helped the national good by resigning at a very much earlier date. No one resigns in the present Government until, like the late Secretary of State for India, (Mr. Montagu), he is turned out. They remain on to the last, even if it consists very little with their dignity and still lees with their honour. [HON. MEMBERS:" No."] They pursue a policy in contradiction with everything they have been saying, but they retain office. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Birkenhead) still sits on the Woolsack. Everything official remains the same, but the policy of the Government is different from day to day, from month to month, and from year to year. Such a Government imperils our public life as it imperils the national good. We cannot do better, so far as the interests of the country are concerned, than to try to make an end of this Government. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House thinks that I have been too harsh, I will withdraw. If he thinks that I have said too much, I have no lack of personal esteem for himself.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What the Noble Lord has said is that I dishonour myself by clinging to office. Does he mean it or does he not?

Lord H. CECIL: I certainly meant it. Otherwise I should not have said it. [Interruption.]

Mr. MacVEAGH: Order. This is a lord.

Lord H. CECIL: What I mean is this, that he has contradicted himself and his whole public life by what he has done in connection with Ireland. That is dishonouring. I quite agree that he probably did it from motives which are perfectly honourable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I do not attribute to my right hon. Friend any conduct that is inconsistent with an honourable man. What I say is that if you act in this way you do destroy the honour of public life; if you cling to office when your policy is abandoned, if you carry out a policy that all your life you have opposed, you do dishonour yourself; and however patriotic or however disinterested your motive may in your heart be, you do lower the whole honour of public life. It is because I am convinced that the Government have done that, that I desire to see their overthrow. The Motion is better than the Amendment. The Motion affirms what no honest man doubts—that we do need to return to an adherence to political principles, to the settling of great public questions in accordance with political principles. If the Government agree with that they should resign. They should give up the attempt to carry out policies which are not founded upon principle but on the purest opportunism, because by so doing they injure their own reputation without benefit to the public; on the contrary they are carrying to every part of the Empire an atmosphere of discredit. I saw only the other day a business man who had been round the world in the course of his business. His impression was that everywhere the reputation of this country for commercial honesty and straightforwardness had fallen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] He attributed it to the reaction of the discredit of the political policy of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is his name?"] Because we were politically discredited, the commercial reputation of the country was lowered.
Therefore let us return; let us re-unite Conservatism on the basis of principles. Let the Government deal with all the political questions that come before them consistently with those principles. Then Conservatism will make its own contribution to the solution of our difficulties and
will play a part not unworthy of its history. And when this Government has become only a recollection, we, and I hope those who are to be opposed to us to-night—we do not at all shrink from the Division—will be able to combine in a Coalition founded on principle, even those who are temporarily in disagreement with us. [Interruption.] It is not true that we desire to break up the party. [Interruption.] We all desire to return to principles. Although they believe, I daresay quite honestly, that they will defeat the Labour party by making a Coalition, not founded on principle, against the Labour party, I think the Government will find in the end that there is only one way of defeating revolutionary tactics and that that is by presenting an organised body of thought which is non-revolutionary. That body of thought I call Conservatism. If the Government will be loyal to Conservatism, loyal, indeed, to any one policy of coherent thought, they will succeed. It is in the hope of defeating the Government, in order that some better Government may take their place and that we may work our way back to the triumph of Conservative principles, that I propose to vote for the Motion.

Captain ELLIOT: It is difficult for one of my political inexperience, to speak in a crowded House, such as this, on great issues such as have been raised this evening. I feel like the knight who rode into the lists and struck his opponent's shield with the sharp end of his lance, signifying his desire to challenge a real and acute combat, because very few of us can compare either in dialectics or intellectual ability with the Noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. It seems urgent however that some of the younger Members should speak, so far as we find it possible, as to why we intend to support the Government in the Division Lobby. We hear ancient quarrels being rehearsed on the Floor of this House; we hear these old, weary struggles being dragged out and see men desiring to look here for differences, as if there were not differences enough in the country already; we find the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) saying that we must have a party if it is only for defeated Ministers to retire to, where they may find an alternative set
of principles when they have cast the old one overboard; we find the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) saying such things as that he desired to destroy his great old Conservative party and tear it from top to bottom—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I never said anything of the kind.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER: There are only ten minutes left, and it would be better that the hon. Member should be allowed to proceed. There have been long speeches on the other side, and hon. Members should listen to the reply.

Mr. G. MURRAY: On a point of Order. The hon. Member should not make misstatements.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Why not go outside, and do the washing?

Captain ELLIOT: That last interjection has a great deal of point in it, and that is what causes bitterness—that we should be forced by the action of one of the Conservative Members of this House to have our differences brought out in this way, instead of showing that unanimity which we should possess. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. G. Murray), who tried to raise a point of Order against me, certainly has split the Unionist party in his own division. His own association is against him.

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order—

Captain ELLIOT: It would be difficult to find a better example of these purblind political pundits who are doing so much to wreck the chances of any ordered opposition to the doctrines of Socialism in this country. We know very well that there is a problem in the country to be debated, and, though there are matters which divide us, they do not divide me from the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. They do not divide me from other hon. Members who have spoken on the other side of the House. We are, for good or ill, the capitalist party. The principles of collectivism and individualism are diametrically opposed, and we are not afraid to stand for private enterprise on this side just as hon. Members opposite are ready to stand for their principles. We have been proud of capitalism in the past, and will be in the future. [Interruption.] We can argue hon. Members opposite out of their
beliefs, but not by setting up this puppet show of Liberal and Tory. Let us be frank since these great issues have been challenged. We know very well that there is a division of opinion in this country, and that there are two sets of opinion. Let us be open and honest about it. [Interruption.] What does the hon. Member for Twickenham say, that it is a very dangerous thing if all the "haves" are on one side and all the "have nots" are on the other? Does he think it impossible that someone else should recognise that. Is it not being preached from every platform and soapbox throughout the country, day in and day out, month in and month out? Can we get away from it by putting our heads in the sand and bringing up these old, ancient, antiquated cries to which the Mover of this Motion had recourse, to the very little edification of the House to-night?
When we come to principles, let us have questions of real principle for which there is no need to seek because they are forced on us by every by-election throughout the country, and will be thrust on us more and more. [Interruption.] I have no desire to shirk that great contest, neither has any Member on this side of the House. That great split in opinion will have to be fought out up and down the country at the hustings, and for any Member to say it is dangerous for anyone to realise it is an ostrich-like attitude. I am not going to detain the House. [Interruption.] I know there are many more arguments that could be brought forward, the question of Ireland, the question of India, the question of Egypt. All these have been raised. The question of Egypt was raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham himself when he asked, "Who gave Lord Milner permission to give away a province of this Empire? I suppose it is possible to get more errors into six words, but I would like to see those six words. In spite of repeated declarations that we are going to keep up the independence of Egypt the hon. Member for Twickenham calls Egypt a province of the Empire, and then comes down here and talks about principle. We believe that these old opinions that divide us are nothing compared to the great questions of principle that have arisen in this country, and we believe that so far as it is possible for men of principle to sink small differences in favour of great differ-
ences they should do so, and in that faith we desire to support the Government in the courageous stand it has taken up.

Mr. G. MURRAY: I have about three minutes in which, I think, it is perfectly fair that I should be permitted to make a reply to the various attacks that have been made upon me this evening. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who was presumably replying to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), and I came to the conclusion that he was one of the most practised debaters in this House, an art which I envy him immensely, because in the course of that speech he did not reply in any way to the Resolution which was moved by my hon. Friend. He confined his speech almost entirely to the most bitter attack upon those Members of this House called the

Die-hard group, members of his own party, Members who have done nothing [Interruption]—

Mr. J. H. THOMAS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. G. MURRAY rose—[interruption]—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 288.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gretton, Colonel John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Grundy, T. W.
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Reid, D. D.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Rendall, Athelstan


Banton, George
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprin)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Halls, Walter
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hay ward, Evan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Spencer, George A.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, John Edward


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Swan, J. E.


Cairns, John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maddocks, Henry
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mills, John Edmund
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wintringham, Margaret


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Naylor, Thomas Ellis



Foot, Isaac
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gillis, William
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Viscount Wolmer and Sir R. Cooper.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



NOES.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Barrand, A. R.
Breese, Major Charles E.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Brittain, Sir Harry


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Astor, Viscountess
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Bruton, Sir James


Atkey, A. R.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Betterton, Henry B.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bigland, Alfred
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Birchail, J. Dearman
Burdon, Colonel Rowland


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Burgoyne, Lt-Col. Alan Hughes


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Campbell, J. D. G.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bowies, Colonel H. F.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Carew, Charles Robert S.


Carr, W. Theodore
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pratt, John William


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., withington)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Purchase, H. G.


Casey, T. W.
Horn, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Rae, H. Norman


Cecil, Bt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Howard, Major s. G.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hurd, Percy A.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Renwick, Sir George


Clough, Sir Robert
Jameson, John Gordon
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jesson, C.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rodger, A. K.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General A. K.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Rose, Frank H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Johnstone, Joseph
Rothschild, Lionel de


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Rounded, Colonel R. F.


Cory, Sir J. K. (Cardiff, South)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Kenyon, Barnet
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Kidd, James
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Seager, Sir William


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Seddon, J. A.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lloyd, George Butler
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Elveden, Viscount
Lorden, John William
Simm, M. T.


Evans, Ernest
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stevens, Marshall


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. p.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachie)
Sturrock, J. Long


Ford, Patrick Johnston
McLaren, Hon, H. D. (Leicester)
Sugden, W. H.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sutherland, Sir William


Forrest, Walter
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macquisten, F. A.
Taylor, J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Ganzonl, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Manville, Edward
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Gilbert, James Daniel
Mason, Robert
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Matthews, David
Vickers, Douglas


Glyn, Major Ralph
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Waddington, R.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wallace, J.


Gould, James C.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Goulding, Rt. Hon, Sir Edward A.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Grant, James Augustus
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Waring, Major Walter


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Morris, Richard
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Morrison, Hugh
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Greer, Sir Harry
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Gregory, Holman
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
White, Col. G. D. (South port)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neal, Arthur
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hallwood, Augustine
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Newton, Major Sir Harry K.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Earl


Hancock, John George
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wise, Frederick


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Parker, James
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Woolcock, William James U.


Haslam, Lewis
Pearce, Sir William
Worsfold, T. Cato


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Higham, Charles Frederick
Perkins, Walter Frank
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Perring, William George
Younger, sir George


Hinds, John
Philippe, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)



Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
McCurdy.


Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the Jack of definite and coherent principle in the policy of the present Coalition Government is a myth engendered by misunderstanding and misrepresentation; and that at present the best solution for our national difficulties is the co-operation of well-affected citizens of all political parties in working for the common good.

CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.